Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivolimmen | Hacker News Reader

I agree that we require nuclear energy but not based on plutonium. I am in favor of thorium with molten salt reactors. It is cleaner and safer. China is already researching it and invested a lot of money and people into it. A lot of countries are but it is on a very low scale because it is nuclear and has a bad reputation.

View on HN

Despite nuclear being statistically the safest power source per electrical energy generated, people will always complain that it isn't perfect, and that we must wait for X speculatively perfect technology to be developed before we can stop melting Antarctica and choking on smog.

> plutonium

Modern nuclear reactors don't use plutonium or weapons grade uranium. The ratio of U-235/U-238 is only 3~5% unstable in a nuclear power plant (where weapons grade is over 95%).

Thorium rectors have been experimented with in the US, but they do have problems with corrosion.

Reactors primarily use uranium, but plutonium is routinely used in the form of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel (about thirty reactors in Europe, at least). One reason is to spend the plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons.

Using MOX in conjunction with thorium is also being tested to improve the void coefficient, making reactor operation more stable and safe.

I don't have any connection with these folks, but it seems a game changer on projected price, walk-away safety, thorium compatibility, and claimed use of existing materials: moltexenergy.com .

Molten salts in tubes. They claim "cheaper than coal" can be realistic again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com