Some of the new Russian reactor types are designed to burn away dangerous hot actinides. MSR need onboard fuel processing to continue to operate anyway.
Comment on China has world’s first operational thorium nuclear reactor thanks to ‘strategic stamina’
fullsquare@awful.systems 11 months agoi think that lack of willingness to handle fresh fission products has a part in this, in normal reactor you can just do nothing and win (bulk of most dangerous isotopes decays completely within 5y, not possible to do this with MSR)
eleitl@lemm.ee 11 months ago
fullsquare@awful.systems 11 months ago
These are fast reactors and operate on different principles. The coolant there is sodium and while hard to design and run, it’s doable. French had similar reactor but only one and it was shut down. Nice thing about fast reactors is that these can burn even-numbered isotopes of plutonium, useless in water moderated reactor, and give fresh mostly 239Pu plutonium of good quality. weapons grade even, and IAEA doesn’t like it. But who cares since nonproliferation is dead anyway?
eleitl@lemm.ee 11 months ago
The new generation of Russian fast neutron reactors use lead and lead-bismuth as coolant, not sodium anymore. They are not proper breeders, as I understood it.
fullsquare@awful.systems 11 months ago
These were not supposed to be breeders, but this is only due to agreements that are ignored ny now. Technical capability is there
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
I think maybe also the fact that nuclear fusion is definitely frfr only a few years away from being viable, no cap, has contributed to a lack of fission research, too.
AA5B@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If only people saying that were aware of their logic flaw of also cutting funding to fusion research
fullsquare@awful.systems 11 months ago
SMRs too
AA5B@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s probably as simple as we already have something successful. Why spend time and effort overcoming the challenges to create new reactor technology with many of the same benefits and shortcomings as we already have?
I know the arguments for thorium and can see that being a huge benefit to places without a mature nuclear industry and without developed fuel sources.
Sure it would be somewhat better for us as well, but the biggest limitations will be the same. You’re still impeded by fears of radioactivity even if it is less. You still have radioactive waste to handle even if it’s less and less long lasting. You still have legal and regulatory challenges driving costs and timelines through the roof. Thorium hasn’t won the war of public perception, so is no better in the things that actually impede its use