Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost:
<https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery wrote:

> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>
> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>
> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> reactors at extremely low cost:
> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>
> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> adoption.
-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

Dexter <not@home.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
> > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> >
> > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> >
> > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> > reactors at extremely low cost:
> > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> >
> > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> > adoption.
> -------------------------------------
> I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>
> I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

Sure, and once again:
The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
Can you guess why?

Jan

On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > jillery wrote:
> >
> > > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> > > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> > > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> > >
> > > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> > >
> > > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> > > reactors at extremely low cost:
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> > >
> > > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> > > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> > > adoption.
> > -------------------------------------
> > I just saw that video earlier this evening.
> >
> > I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> > for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> > yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> > he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>
> Sure, and once again:
> The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
> Can you guess why?
>
It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to
build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
it may work".
It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:

> On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > jillery wrote:
> > >
> > > > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> > > > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> > > > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> > > >
> > > > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> > > >
> > > > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> > > > reactors at extremely low cost:
> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> > > >
> > > > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> > > > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> > > > adoption.
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > I just saw that video earlier this evening.
> > >
> > > I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> > > for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> > > yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> > > he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
> >
> > Sure, and once again:
> > The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
> > Can you guess why?
> >
> It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to
> build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
> it may work".
> It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
> low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.

Yes, also know as 'fake it til you can make it.'.
It has make some lawyers real happy, and some fakers have gone to jail.

As for fanciful nuclear reactors (and also fusion) the hard question is:
what is a realistic estimate of how much a kilowatthour
is going to cost?

You never get a realistic answer to that, if you get one at all.

BTW, there is an even more fanciful and more insanely great proposal:
the accellerator-driven molten salt reactor.
It has all the insanly great advantages of the molten salt thing,
but it is also sub-critical, hence inherently safe, hopefully.
(the accelerator produces the extra neutrons to keep it going)

A bit surprising that our local youtube-technical genius
hasn't stumbled on that yet,

Jan

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>>
>> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>>
>> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>> reactors at extremely low cost:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>>
>> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>> adoption.
>-------------------------------------
>I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>
>I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:23:05 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > jillery wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>> > > > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>> > > > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>> > > >
>> > > > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>> > > >
>> > > > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>> > > > reactors at extremely low cost:
>> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>> > > >
>> > > > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>> > > > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>> > > > adoption.
>> > > -------------------------------------
>> > > I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>> > >
>> > > I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>> > > for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>> > > yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>> > > he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>> >
>> > Sure, and once again:
>> > The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
>> > Can you guess why?
>> >
>> It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to
>> build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
>> it may work".
>> It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
>> low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.
>
>Yes, also know as 'fake it til you can make it.'.
>It has make some lawyers real happy, and some fakers have gone to jail.
>
>As for fanciful nuclear reactors (and also fusion) the hard question is:
>what is a realistic estimate of how much a kilowatthour
>is going to cost?
>
>You never get a realistic answer to that, if you get one at all.
>
>BTW, there is an even more fanciful and more insanely great proposal:
>the accellerator-driven molten salt reactor.
>It has all the insanly great advantages of the molten salt thing,
>but it is also sub-critical, hence inherently safe, hopefully.
>(the accelerator produces the extra neutrons to keep it going)

Ok then. So don't replace horses with automobiles because they would
contribute to global warming. Got it.

If civilization waited for perfect solutions, we would still be
banging rocks together.

>A bit surprising that our local youtube-technical genius
>hasn't stumbled on that yet,

As usual, you make no effort to specify any actual objections, just
asinine ad-hominems like the above.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 30/01/2024 03:16, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>>> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>>> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>>>
>>> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>>>
>>> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>>> reactors at extremely low cost:
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>>>
>>> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>>> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>>> adoption.
>> -------------------------------------
>> I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>>
>> I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>> for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>> yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>> he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>
>
> My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
> organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
> atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

A lot of nations without nuclear weapon operate nuclear power stations.
Some of them may consider the potential to divert material to a weapons
program to be a feature rather than a bug, but I doubt that all do.
Israel and North Korea don't have nuclear power.

The people pushing nuclear non-proliferation (including the nuclear
powers) would prefer that nuclear power stations in countries without
nuclear weapons didn't have the ability to produce plutonium..
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:23:05 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > jillery wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> >> > > > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> >> > > > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> >> > > > reactors at extremely low cost:
> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> >> > > > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> >> > > > adoption.
> >> > > -------------------------------------
> >> > > I just saw that video earlier this evening.
> >> > >
> >> > > I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> >> > > for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> >> > > yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> >> > > he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
> >> >
> >> > Sure, and once again:
> >> > The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
> >> > Can you guess why?
> >> >
> >> It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to
> >> build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
> >> it may work".
> >> It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
> >> low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.
> >
> >Yes, also know as 'fake it til you can make it.'.
> >It has make some lawyers real happy, and some fakers have gone to jail.
> >
> >As for fanciful nuclear reactors (and also fusion) the hard question is:
> >what is a realistic estimate of how much a kilowatthour
> >is going to cost?
> >
> >You never get a realistic answer to that, if you get one at all.
> >
> >BTW, there is an even more fanciful and more insanely great proposal:
> >the accellerator-driven molten salt reactor.
> >It has all the insanly great advantages of the molten salt thing,
> >but it is also sub-critical, hence inherently safe, hopefully.
> >(the accelerator produces the extra neutrons to keep it going)
>
>
> Ok then. So don't replace horses with automobiles because they would
> contribute to global warming. Got it.
>
> If civilization waited for perfect solutions, we would still be
> banging rocks together.

Your dumb American self, usual.
'Progress' is good, no matter what.
Why can't you fly a supersonic transport?

> >A bit surprising that our local youtube-technical genius
> >hasn't stumbled on that yet,
>
> As usual, you make no effort to specify any actual objections, just
> asinine ad-hominems like the above.

This is T.O., and not the place for dicusing the merits of technologies.

> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Indeed, technology assesment is not your strongest point,

Jan

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
> >jillery wrote:
> >
> >> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> >> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> >> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> >>
> >> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> >>
> >> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> >> reactors at extremely low cost:
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> >>
> >> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> >> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> >> adoption.
> >-------------------------------------
> >I just saw that video earlier this evening.
> >
> >I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> >for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> >yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> >he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>
>
> My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
> organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
> atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

For not too small values of 'recently'.
But you have a point, albeit a very old one.
Atomic weapons and atomic bombs were a kind of Siamese twin.

You can't have nuclear weapons without having a nuclear industry,
and you cannot have a nuclear industry on the defense budget alone.
So all nuclear weapon states must have nuclear power reactors
in order to make their weaponry affordble.

The converse is of course not true,
because you can buy them, and/or the know-how,
from others who developed their nuclear industry with weapons subsidies.

Your understanding of the situation is thoroughly flawed however,
because you don't understand the difference
between 'just any' plutonium and 'weapons-grade' plutonium.
FYI, commercial power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium.
This is a standard nonsense argument used by the thorium lobby,

Jan

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 30/01/2024 03:16, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
> >>> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
> >>> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
> >>>
> >>> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
> >>>
> >>> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
> >>> reactors at extremely low cost:
> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
> >>>
> >>> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
> >>> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
> >>> adoption.
> >> -------------------------------------
> >> I just saw that video earlier this evening.
> >>
> >> I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
> >> for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
> >> yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
> >> he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
> >
> >
> > My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
> > organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
> > atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.
>
> A lot of nations without nuclear weapon operate nuclear power stations.
> Some of them may consider the potential to divert material to a weapons
> program to be a feature rather than a bug, but I doubt that all do.

You cannot divert 'material to a weapons program' while operating
the power reactor -as a power reactor-.
Hence, under the non-proliferation treaty,
one of the tasks of the IAEA is to make sure, by inspections,
that power reactors are indeed operated as power reactors. [1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency>

> Israel and North Korea don't have nuclear power.

They also have only a 'small' number of bombs.
(which you can make over a long time with a small research-size reactor)
This is fine with them, for they don't want a nuclear arsenal.
They only want, and need, a DMD. (for Dead Man's Deterrent)
Both think that they have good reasons to want one.

> The people pushing nuclear non-proliferation (including the nuclear
> powers) would prefer that nuclear power stations in countries without
> nuclear weapons didn't have the ability to produce plutonium..

Yes, hence the non-proliferation treaty, for what it is worth,

Jan

[1] In the early days of the American program,
operators of power plants got fuel rods practically for free,
if they agreed to have them frequently exchanged for fresh ones.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:42:31 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 30/01/2024 03:16, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>>>> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>>>> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>>>>
>>>> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>>>>
>>>> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>>>> reactors at extremely low cost:
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>>>>
>>>> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>>>> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>>>> adoption.
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>>>
>>> I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>>> for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>>> yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>>> he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>>
>>
>> My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
>> organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
>> atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.
>
>A lot of nations without nuclear weapon operate nuclear power stations.
>Some of them may consider the potential to divert material to a weapons
>program to be a feature rather than a bug, but I doubt that all do.
>Israel and North Korea don't have nuclear power.

There are ways to make nuclear weapons without plutonium. My
impression is there are ways, legal and otherwise, for governments to
obtain plutonium.

>The people pushing nuclear non-proliferation (including the nuclear
>powers) would prefer that nuclear power stations in countries without
>nuclear weapons didn't have the ability to produce plutonium..

Yes, which is one of the reasons for expanding nuclear power via
thorium/molten-salt reactors.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:03:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) trolled:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:23:05 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> > Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > jillery wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>> >> > > > discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>> >> > > > comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>> >> > > > reactors at extremely low cost:
>> >> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>> >> > > > combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>> >> > > > adoption.
>> >> > > -------------------------------------
>> >> > > I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>> >> > > for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>> >> > > yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>> >> > > he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure, and once again:
>> >> > The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
>> >> > Can you guess why?
>> >> >
>> >> It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to
>> >> build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
>> >> it may work".
>> >> It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
>> >> low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.
>> >
>> >Yes, also know as 'fake it til you can make it.'.
>> >It has make some lawyers real happy, and some fakers have gone to jail.
>> >
>> >As for fanciful nuclear reactors (and also fusion) the hard question is:
>> >what is a realistic estimate of how much a kilowatthour
>> >is going to cost?
>> >
>> >You never get a realistic answer to that, if you get one at all.
>> >
>> >BTW, there is an even more fanciful and more insanely great proposal:
>> >the accellerator-driven molten salt reactor.
>> >It has all the insanly great advantages of the molten salt thing,
>> >but it is also sub-critical, hence inherently safe, hopefully.
>> >(the accelerator produces the extra neutrons to keep it going)
>>
>>
>> Ok then. So don't replace horses with automobiles because they would
>> contribute to global warming. Got it.
>>
>> If civilization waited for perfect solutions, we would still be
>> banging rocks together.
>
>Your dumb American self, usual.

Your asinine ad-hominems, as usual.

>'Progress' is good, no matter what.
>Why can't you fly a supersonic transport?

You argue like a Creationist. You *still* haven't even tried to say
what features of thorium/molten-salt reactors you object to.

>> >A bit surprising that our local youtube-technical genius
>> >hasn't stumbled on that yet,
>>
>> As usual, you make no effort to specify any actual objections, just
>> asinine ad-hominems like the above.
>
>This is T.O., and not the place for dicusing the merits of technologies.

Since it bothers you so much, do everybody a favor and ignore the
topic.

>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
>Indeed, technology assesment is not your strongest point,

Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:03:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >jillery wrote:
>> >
>> >> Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
>> >> discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
>> >> comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>
>> >>
>> >> This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>
>> >>
>> >> Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
>> >> reactors at extremely low cost:
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>
>> >>
>> >> This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
>> >> combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
>> >> adoption.
>> >-------------------------------------
>> >I just saw that video earlier this evening.
>> >
>> >I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
>> >for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
>> >yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
>> >he customary nuclear reactors in use now.
>>
>>
>> My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by
>> organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
>> atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.
>
>For not too small values of 'recently'.
>But you have a point, albeit a very old one.
>Atomic weapons and atomic bombs were a kind of Siamese twin.
>
>You can't have nuclear weapons without having a nuclear industry,
>and you cannot have a nuclear industry on the defense budget alone.
>So all nuclear weapon states must have nuclear power reactors
>in order to make their weaponry affordble.
>
>The converse is of course not true,
>because you can buy them, and/or the know-how,
>from others who developed their nuclear industry with weapons subsidies.
>
>Your understanding of the situation is thoroughly flawed however,

Your understanding of my understanding is thoroughly flawed.

>because you don't understand the difference
>between 'just any' plutonium and 'weapons-grade' plutonium.
>FYI, commercial power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium.
>This is a standard nonsense argument used by the thorium lobby,

Plutonium, weapons-grade and otherwise, is both highly radioactive and
biochemically toxic. Because most of its isotopes have relatively
short half-lives, it exists naturally only in trace amounts.
Substantial amounts can be obtained economically only via synthesis in
nuclear reactors. Your mentioning weapons-grade plutonium is a
pointless obfuscation.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge