Some good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power

Spiny Norman said:

Some good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power

> The nuclear fuel itself, tens of thousands of billiard-ball-size spheres containing particles of radioactive material.

OK, so the carbon ball system. This has problems. But it is, unlike molten salt reactors, new technology.

> They could run on uranium

Almost all uranium reactors could run on U233 from thorium and visa versa.

> The ultimate goal of the Shanghai Institute: to build a molten-salt reactor that could replace the 1970s-era technology

A type of fast breeder reactor, Oak Ridge was doing this in the 1950s and 1960s. I take it you’re aware that fast breeder reactors like these are the fastest way to make nuclear weapons. So, how are they overcoming the serious corrosion problems?

> Plans include as many as 30 new conventional nuclear plants (in addition to the 34 reactors operating today) as well as a variety of next-generation reactors, including thorium molten-salt reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (which, like molten-salt reactors, are both highly efficient and inherently safe), and sodium-cooled fast reactors (which can consume spent fuel from conventional reactors to make electricity).

That’s significant. I like it, unless they’re gearing up for nuclear war.

mollwollfumble said:

Spiny Norman said:

Some good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power

> The nuclear fuel itself, tens of thousands of billiard-ball-size spheres containing particles of radioactive material.

OK, so the carbon ball system. This has problems. But it is, unlike molten salt reactors, new technology.

> They could run on uranium

Almost all uranium reactors could run on U233 from thorium and visa versa.

> The ultimate goal of the Shanghai Institute: to build a molten-salt reactor that could replace the 1970s-era technology

A type of fast breeder reactor, Oak Ridge was doing this in the 1950s and 1960s. I take it you’re aware that fast breeder reactors like these are the fastest way to make nuclear weapons. So, how are they overcoming the serious corrosion problems?

> Plans include as many as 30 new conventional nuclear plants (in addition to the 34 reactors operating today) as well as a variety of next-generation reactors, including thorium molten-salt reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (which, like molten-salt reactors, are both highly efficient and inherently safe), and sodium-cooled fast reactors (which can consume spent fuel from conventional reactors to make electricity).

That’s significant. I like it, unless they’re gearing up for nuclear war.

Which I think is highly likely, not necessarily to use but as a bargaining/threatening tool.

bob(from black rock) said:

mollwollfumble said:

Spiny Norman said:

Some good news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power

> The nuclear fuel itself, tens of thousands of billiard-ball-size spheres containing particles of radioactive material.

OK, so the carbon ball system. This has problems. But it is, unlike molten salt reactors, new technology.

> They could run on uranium

Almost all uranium reactors could run on U233 from thorium and visa versa.

> The ultimate goal of the Shanghai Institute: to build a molten-salt reactor that could replace the 1970s-era technology

A type of fast breeder reactor, Oak Ridge was doing this in the 1950s and 1960s. I take it you’re aware that fast breeder reactors like these are the fastest way to make nuclear weapons. So, how are they overcoming the serious corrosion problems?

> Plans include as many as 30 new conventional nuclear plants (in addition to the 34 reactors operating today) as well as a variety of next-generation reactors, including thorium molten-salt reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (which, like molten-salt reactors, are both highly efficient and inherently safe), and sodium-cooled fast reactors (which can consume spent fuel from conventional reactors to make electricity).

That’s significant. I like it, unless they’re gearing up for nuclear war.

Which I think is highly likely, not necessarily to use but as a bargaining/threatening tool.

They already have nuclear weapons. Building thorium reactors won’t give them more.

When nuclear weapon age and become dangerous, can or do they reuse the fissionable material in new warheads or is it disposed of.

> can or do they reuse the fissionable material in new warheads

Yes. Reused or (temporarily) mothballed. Radiation causes slow degradation of warhead fissionable material and much faster degradation of warhead fusionable material. Almost all of the most recent nuclear bomb testing in the USA and Russia was in determining how much influence this radiation-induced degradation had on weapon yield.

> They already have nuclear weapons. Building thorium reactors won’t give them more.

No. But it could be instantly adapted to give them more if “pax americana” broke down.