[HN Gopher] China Says It's Closing in on Thorium Nuclear Reactor
___________________________________________________________________
China Says It's Closing in on Thorium Nuclear Reactor
Author : Hoasi
Score : 51 points
Date : 2021-08-04 19:57 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| j_walter wrote:
| Nuclear is far from the best source of electricity, but it is far
| less damaging to the environment than coal or NG if handled and
| designed properly. If countries can work together to put them in
| places that protect from major earthquakes or other natural
| disasters then I think we can get some decent movement on reduce
| GHG emissions from power plants.
| timbit42 wrote:
| How long does it take to plan and build a nuclear plant? At the
| rate solar, wind and energy storage are improving, will it be
| worth the wait? Solar has dropped in price by more than 80% in
| the past 10 years.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Compare the EROEI on solar (~10) vs nuclear (~100), and LFTR
| (~1200 maybe...) in particular, there is no comparison. In
| the future we will need far more electrical energy, it's not
| enough to just replace what we currently have. Also if we
| want to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere, we will
| need a tremendous amount of power.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Problem is, we might not be able to build them fast enough.
|
| China is currently the leader in deployment of nuclear
| power, but even there wind power overtook it in terms of
| GWh delivered in 2013 and the difference was been widening
| ever since.
|
| Similarly within a decade solar went from delivering 1% of
| the energy nuclear did, to 70%. At this rate it will close
| the gap before 2025.
| DennisP wrote:
| Present-day reactors, a long time. Small modular reactors
| built in factories or shipyards could be pretty quick. Some
| of those designs are MSRs like China's reactor.
| DennisP wrote:
| One nice thing about a molten salt reactor like China is
| building is that the dangerous fission products are chemically
| bound in the salt. If some external event breaks the reactor
| wide open, the salt cools and you just have radioactive rocks
| there on the site, instead of a radioactive cloud over a large
| region.
| guscost wrote:
| This could also be a feint to get DoD money into the technology.
| tpmx wrote:
| That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP has proven to us
| that we can't trust their word. Over and over again.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| They say they're 9 years away. That's a long enough date that
| I'd be skeptical of any government that was giving a prediction
| for nearly a decade out.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > That would be awesome, but unfortunately the CCP has proven
| to us that we can't trust their word. Over and over again.
|
| IMHO, claims like this from them should be believed 100%,
| because to do otherwise invites complacency.
| smhost wrote:
| this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend to
| lie about. it's not like a scenario where a contractor
| overpromises and underdelivers and government media has to do
| damage control. they're also not announcing some new leap in
| scientific understanding. it's old science.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > this also isn't the type of thing that governments tend
| to lie about
|
| This is the sort of thing governments lie about, IME - big,
| sensational achievements that enhance their status.
| duairc wrote:
| > CCP has proven to us that we can't trust their word. Over and
| over again.
|
| Are you able to substantiate that claim?
| antman wrote:
| My thinking is that for major projects they mostly deliver
| against our intuition. What are the counter examples which are
| over and over again?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-04 23:01 UTC)