Remember me
▼ Content

Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)


Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)23-03-2021 17:14
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
I guess it is news that Copenhagen Atomics actually sell a Molten Salt loop priced at 88000dollar, output should be 1mwh of heat. This reactor look like a fridge and they think it can be changed to run on Thorium with electric output in a few years (but not legal to work with in Denmark, so they need to move first).
If they manage to build it with Thorium then it might have huge impact on the climate. If output is still 1mwh and Copenhagen Atomics can build 30 reactors per day, then it will be like building a nuclear plant for every 2-5 days, which often takes 3 years to build. In theory you will be able to build a 100mwh reactor plant at 8.8million Dollar. I know it is just theory, but i guess it is very cheap, also if price change later.
23-03-2021 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
If you build it with thorium you will have an impact on climate. Yours. This stuff is pretty lethal.

...and people worry about their microwave oven leaking RF.
23-03-2021 20:37
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Thorium can be dangerous if you are heavily exposed to it, like on a nuclear plant. Just not as dangerous to store after use as uranium. But if installed in safe distance from people i guess not dangerous to average people, and specialists can take precautions. Im sure it will not be allowed in Denmark if it is tagged Dangerous.
24-03-2021 06:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
Anders wrote:
Thorium can be dangerous if you are heavily exposed to it, like on a nuclear plant. Just not as dangerous to store after use as uranium. But if installed in safe distance from people i guess not dangerous to average people, and specialists can take precautions. Im sure it will not be allowed in Denmark if it is tagged Dangerous.


Throrium has a half life of 14 billion years. It also does not have as much fissile energy as uranium.

What happens when the appliance rots?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-03-2021 16:55
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Well - I guess now it hurt me that i did not announce this correct. I had the idea that it was easier to sell idea about Thorium. Fact is that Copenhagen Atomics say that in a few years they can change their MSR to run on either Thorium or I guess, at normal input in nuclear plant. Sorry im not a specialist in this. I read in wiki that thorium is used together with uranium, because of higher output and fewer waste issues. My suggestion is that you find their website and youtube video for more info.
24-03-2021 23:16
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(565)
Anders wrote:
Thorium can be dangerous if you are heavily exposed to it, like on a nuclear plant. Just not as dangerous to store after use as uranium. But if installed in safe distance from people i guess not dangerous to average people, and specialists can take precautions. Im sure it will not be allowed in Denmark if it is tagged Dangerous.


Sell your Pokémon collection and invest in refrigerator reactors
25-03-2021 04:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Swan wrote:Sell your Pokémon collection and invest in refrigerator reactors

Anders is waiting for his Pokemon to split.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2021 05:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
Anders wrote:
Well - I guess now it hurt me that i did not announce this correct. I had the idea that it was easier to sell idea about Thorium. Fact is that Copenhagen Atomics say that in a few years they can change their MSR to run on either Thorium or I guess, at normal input in nuclear plant. Sorry im not a specialist in this. I read in wiki that thorium is used together with uranium, because of higher output and fewer waste issues. My suggestion is that you find their website and youtube video for more info.


Wikipedia is dismissed with prejudice. It's articles are too often incomplete, badly written, or just plain wrong. You cannot use it as a reference with me.
Youtube is not authoritative either. Like Google, is it not God.

Thorium is weaker in energy, but highly toxic, and has a half life much longer than the reactor vessel an be expected to reasonably last.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
26-03-2021 11:04
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
It is not me who is wrong, it is you guys who wants to reject an invention we have been hunting for the past 20 years. We already use both uranium and thorium today with just a few issues to the world, but you try to send a signal that you have better options for the climate and humans need for electricity. You dont. If you do then you should tell about it in here. This is actually a co that is facing the issues we have.
A big part of the CO2 pollution is emissions from big container ships and cruise lines. just one ship lead out same pollution as 50million cars. If we have 1500 big ships then it equals pollution from 75billion gas powered cars. You are not taking care of pollution issues in the world before you address this issue. I think instead of just reject inventions that bring solution to some issues, you should tell which other inventions you think handle the issues in the world better. But you have no other solutions!! You are just negative that the world is changing in a pace you find difficult to handle.
Into the night, you dont believe Wiki, none in here believe your statements more than Wiki. You are welcome to find proof that you are right and Wiki is wrong. But your statement that thorium is more dangerous than uran because half time is longer is not correct if reactor use more of the radioactive material so just very little left.
Why is it that we build both uranium reactors and thorium reactors today? Is it because both are viable options, or is it because the specialists didnt read your statement?
26-03-2021 17:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
Anders wrote:
It is not me who is wrong, it is you guys who wants to reject an invention we have been hunting for the past 20 years.

We??? How many of you are there? You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. You only get to speak for yourself.
Anders wrote:
We already use both uranium and thorium today with just a few issues to the world,

No, we don't. Thorium cannot power a reactor. Uranium has to purified to select a particular isotope to power a reactor.
Anders wrote:
but you try to send a signal that you have better options for the climate

Climate is a subjective word. It doesn't have or use 'options'. Cliche fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Anders wrote:
and humans need for electricity.

It's easy to generate electricity. All you gotta do is make a battery or find a way to turn a shaft on a generator, alternator, or dynamo. Methods are coal, oil products, natural gas, propane, falling water, wind, solar panels, using the thermal energy within the Earth, tides, etc. The fuels with the most BTU are coal, oil products, and methane (natural gas).

Hydroelectric power can only be built in certain locations, due to the terrain required. The same is true of any tidal system or geothermal system. Wind and solar are piddle power, and the most costly methods to generate power, watt for watt.
Anders wrote:
You dont. If you do then you should tell about it in here.

I already have. RQAA.
Anders wrote:
This is actually a co that is facing the issues we have.

CO is the result of burning fuel inefficiently. More modern engines have less of a problem with that.
Anders wrote:
A big part of the CO2 pollution

CO2 is not pollution. It is a naturally occurring gas absolutely necessary for life on Earth.
Anders wrote:
is emissions from big container ships and cruise lines.

Cruise lines are largely shut down due to that other religion, the Church of Covid. CO2 is not pollution.
Anders wrote:
just one ship lead out same pollution as 50million cars.
If we have 1500 big ships then it equals pollution from 75billion gas powered cars.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. Random numbers are not data. CO2 is not pollution.
Anders wrote:
You are not taking care of pollution issues in the world before you address this issue. I think instead of just reject inventions that bring solution to some issues,

CO2 is not pollution.
Anders wrote:
you should tell which other inventions you think handle the issues in the world better.

Non-issue. Void argument fallacy.
Anders wrote:
But you have no other solutions!! You are just negative that the world is changing in a pace you find difficult to handle.

I find no difficulty with the world changing. Remember I'm an engineer and scientist. I bring about change. You are harping on a 'problem' that doesn't exist.
Anders wrote:
Into the night, you dont believe Wiki,

The word "don't" has an apostrophe. It's a contraction of the words 'do not'.
Wiki is a piece of software. I use it from time to time. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here. Wikipedia is a website full of articles that are incomplete, badly worded, biased, or just plain wrong. You cannot use it as a reference anywhere with me. It is not an authoritative reference of anything.
Anders wrote:
none in here believe your statements more than Wiki.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. You only get to speak for you. Argument from randU fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Anders wrote:
You are welcome to find proof that you are right and Wiki is wrong.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No, I don't have to prove anything.
Anders wrote:
But your statement that thorium is more dangerous than uran because half time is longer is not correct if reactor use more of the radioactive material so just very little left.

There are no thorium reactors. Thorium will not fission by itself at any useful rate. It is, however, a dangerous material, since it does put out high speed neutrons. It's half life is about 14 billion years. Small amounts of thorium are safe to handle and is used in everyday products. These are not large enough to fission at all.
Anders wrote:
Why is it that we build both uranium reactors and thorium reactors today?

There are no thorium reactors. Thorium will not fission on any useful level by itself. It can be used, however, in certain medical treatments due to it's radioactivity. There is no 'we'. You only get to speak for yourself. You do not get to speak for anyone else.
Anders wrote:
Is it because both are viable options, or is it because the specialists didnt read your statement?

You don't get to speak for 'specialists'. Expert worship. Void authority fallacy. Attempt to build a false dichotomy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-03-2021 08:51
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
You bring no useful info here. When i use "we" it mean the world in general, that we work to reach a goal. And yes i think India have one or more running thorium reactors. It is actually so well developed that you can order a 500mwh thorium plant and have it delivered in 4 years. You are a engineer NOT God, apparently you have no idea about the tech we got in this world. I do not make up numbers, global co ABB who are working to change cargo ships say one ship equals pollution from 50million cars. You dont bring anything useful to this thread. Do your participation bring any value to this board? Why should other people listen to what you do believe or not, if you wont tell why the info you dont like is wrong. You just cry like a little baby - me dont like.
27-03-2021 18:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
Anders wrote:
You bring no useful info here. When i use "we" it mean the world in general,

You don't get to speak for the world in general. You are not God. You only get to speak for you.
Anders wrote:
that we work to reach a goal.

Who are you to declare a world goal? You are not God.
Anders wrote:
And yes i think India have one or more running thorium reactors.

No such thing. Thorium will not power a reactor.
Anders wrote:
It is actually so well developed that you can order a 500mwh thorium plant and have it delivered in 4 years.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
Anders wrote:
You are a engineer NOT God,

I am an engineer and a scientist. I don't need to be God. I am not speaking for the world or for anybody else.
Anders wrote:
apparently you have no idea about the tech we got in this world.

I build the tech, stupid.
Anders wrote:
I do not make up numbers,

Lie. You make up numbers.
Anders wrote:
global co ABB who are working to change cargo ships say one ship equals pollution from 50million cars.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.
Anders wrote:
You dont bring anything useful to this thread.

Bulverism fallacy.
Anders wrote:
Do your participation bring any value to this board?
Why should other people listen to what you do believe or not,

Because science, mathematics, logic, philosophy, and engineering are valuable things to know.
Anders wrote:
if you wont tell why the info you dont like is wrong. You just cry like a little baby - me dont like.

I already told you. Pay attention. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-03-2021 22:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Into the Night wrote:
Anders wrote:It is not me who is wrong, it is you guys who wants to reject an invention we have been hunting for the past 20 years.
We??? How many of you are there? You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. You only get to speak for yourself.

I appreciate you covering all the bases. There is no need for me to respond to Anders. He seems to have been sold a bill of goods by someone and is now traveling missionary seeking to preach the good word to serve as the cornerstone upon which someone will build a church.

Into the Night wrote: Uranium has to purified to select a particular isotope to power a reactor.

This made me laugh. The uranium is enriched, not purified. I had two separate visions. One of uranium being pumped through a flitration plant in order to extract lead and other contaminants. The other was of someone presenting a bill of lading for pure U-235. If thorium were anything like that then yes, it would certainly be able to power a reactor.

Rock on.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Molten Salt Reactor (MSR):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Salt Tolerant Vegetation2408-01-2020 22:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact