NATION

PASSWORD

The U.S. is helping China build Molten-Salt Reactors

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Should we be helping Beijing build Liquid Fuel Molten-Salt Reactors?

Yes, it can only lead to good things in the future!
55
80%
No, we shouldn't be helping our geopolitical rival build these!
9
13%
Crap, that's a mouth-full. Can't we just call them iReacts?
5
7%
 
Total votes : 69

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

The U.S. is helping China build Molten-Salt Reactors

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:50 pm

http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china ... r-reactor/

The Department of Energy is dusting off one of the old betamaxes of nuclear technology: The molten salt reactor. But with political will lacking at home, it will rise in China.

In 1973, the Nixon administration made a momentous decision that altered the course of civilian nuclear power: It fired the director of the renowned Oak Ridge National Laboratory, scuppering development of a reactor widely regarded as safer and superior to the complicated, inferior behemoths that define the global industry to this day.

Nixon banished a reactor that was virtually meltdown-proof, left comparatively little long-lived waste, made it more difficult to fashion a bomb from the waste, ran at friendlier atmospheric pressure instead of the potentially explosive pressurized environments of conventional reactors, and ran at much higher temperatures, making it more cost-effective as an electricity generator.

Under director Alvin Weinberg, Oak Ridge had built and run a small, experimental version of the so-called molten-salt reactor for five years. It wasn’t perfect but it was a good start, and inventor Weinberg was preparing to improve it. Then Nixon’s axe fell, leaving Oak Ridge all dressed up and nowhere to go as the keeper of a valuable, clean, safe nuclear energy technology—a technology that today could go a long way toward moving the world onto a much needed source of power that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide.

Decades later, the U.S. Department of Energy (which owns Oak Ridge) is slowly reawakening to Weinberg’s vision. But this time, rather than build a molten-salt reactor itself—the country currently lacks the political will and funding to do so—the U.S. is helping others.

Fortune has learned that DOE plans to sign a 10-year collaboration agreement with China to help that country build at least one molten-salt machine within the next decade. And in a smaller development, Oak Ridge publicly announced in January that it will advise Terrestrial Energy, a privately held Canadian start-up, on development of a molten-salt reactor that draws on Weinberg designs and on the reactor scheme that briefly hatched at Oak Ridge after Weinberg left.

The idea from the U.S. perspective—especially with the larger DOE collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences—is to foster a reactor that could eventually gain hold in the U.S.

“The Chinese will be doing work and sharing information with us, and we’ll be applying our expertise and supporting them,” Oak Ridge nuclear engineer Jess Gehin tells Fortune. “They’re going to build a reactor there [in China]. Hopefully one will get built in the U.S., but there isn’t any concrete plan for that.”

In recent years, China has committed some $400 million to development of two molten-salt reactors at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, which is part of the Academy. China first announced its plans in early 2011, and at one point was targeting this year for completion of a tiny pilot version of its first, on the way to a full blown demonstrator by 2024, rated at 100 megawatts—a size that fits the emerging trend for small reactors. Its target dates have shifted a few times; it could benefit from DOE’s help. A second molten-salt reactor based on a variation of the first is due within 10 to 20 years.

“The Chinese, being relatively new to it, need technical support,” says Gehin, who leads Oak Ridge’s efforts to integrate reactor technology research and development projects. “If they follow through and build a test reactor, there’s a lot of useful information that we could get from that.”

The 10-year cooperative research and development agreement, or CRADA, ratchets up a smaller “memorandum of understanding” that the Department of Energy and China signed in late 2011 to collaborate on the same technology. With the new installment, China is contributing “a significant amount of money,” Gehin says.

The collaboration will not initially focus on a replica of Weinberg’s experimental reactor. Weinberg used a liquid fuel, mixing uranium with molten salts that would flow through the reactor serving as both the fuel and the coolant. The U.S. Department of Energy is specifically helping China develop a machine that uses solid, pebble-shaped fuel, but that will use flowing molten salts as the reactor’s “coolant.” (In a nuclear power system, coolants absorb heat from fission reactions and transfer it to water, creating steam to drive a turbine. Conventional reactors typically use ordinary water to cool reactions, and are called Light Water Reactors, or LWRs.)

China plans to eventually build a liquid fuel molten-salt reactor as well. The DOE collaboration will help. To help increase their effectiveness, China plans to run the reactors not on uranium but on thorium, which enhances the reactor benefits.

Nuclear energy is a strong part of China’s plans to cut back its reliance on the coal-fired power plants that are choking its cities with deadly pollution and spewing environmentally hazardous carbon dioxide. The two molten-salt reactors are just one of several reactors under development in China based on unconventional designs; China is also building more conventional reactors than any country.

The new reactors have high level support in China, where Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin, oversees them. Last March, Beijing ordered the Shanghai Institute to accelerate development of them.

The younger Jiang has outlined plans to use alternative reactors not only for electricity, but also as sources of clean heat for high temperature industrial processes which today run on CO2-emitting fossil fuels, to help gasify coal, to help produce environmentally friendly methanol fuel, and for other purposes.

Meanwhile, Canada’s Terrestrial Energy is also eyeing the industrial heat market, as well as electricity generation—especially for off-grid locations—for its molten-salt reactor. Terrestrial’s development deal with Oak Ridge is a short term consulting arrangement which could help meet its goal of building such a reactor by the early 2020s.

Oak Ridge will advise Terrestrial on things like salts and heat exchangers, and how to combat corrosion. The Terrestrial reactor will initially run on liquid uranium fuel. It’s based on a designed called the “Denatured Molten Salt Reactor,” which Oak Ridge conceptualized but never built in the 1970s as a follow up to the earlier reactor. The DMSR uses low-enriched uranium, rather than the more highly enriched uranium that Oak Ridge used in the experimental MSR which was to have bred additional fuel. Weinberg wanted to ultimately use thorium.

“If the DMSR is the basis of your design, you’d obviously want to go back to the original lab that has all the data, that has all the know-how; Oak Ridge National Laboratory is that lab for the DMSR,” Terrestrial CEO Simon Irish says.

China probably wouldn’t dispute that.


So, NSG, what do you think about this? I think this is a great step forward in a very promising technology - though it would have been cheaper and more beneficial if the US had just researched and built the reactors itself. Regardless, if this technology pays off, we could have one of the best alternatives to traditional and renewable fuels on the market.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:52 pm

Why did Nixon ever try to get rid of this?
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:54 pm

This is good. While it depresses me how many people in this country are arbitrarily opposed to Nuclear Power, it's nice to see us helping out China. China is one of the world's largest polluters, so I support our efforts to assist them in this area and, hopefully, this will lead to a stronger movement for Nuclear Power here in the U.S..
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:54 pm

Geilinor wrote:Why did Nixon ever try to get rid of this?

The fuel couldn't be used to make nuclear weapons, which lowered the tech's usefulness in Cold War America.
Last edited by Skappola on Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Benuty
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37334
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Benuty » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:55 pm

Geilinor wrote:Why did Nixon ever try to get rid of this?

Because they tended to act like a cunt sometimes?
Last edited by Hashem 13.8 billion years ago
King of Madness in the Right Wing Discussion Thread. Winner of 2016 Posters Award for Insanity. Please be aware my posts in NSG, and P2TM are separate.

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:57 pm

Geilinor wrote:Why did Nixon ever try to get rid of this?

It was Nixon. Do you really need more reason?
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17734
Founded: May 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Diopolis » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:57 pm

Good. Nuclear power is really the only way to cut emissions enough to deal with global warming.
Texas nationalist, right-wing technocrat, radical social conservative, post-liberal.

User avatar
Hurdegaryp
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54204
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Hurdegaryp » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:58 pm

Skappola wrote:
Geilinor wrote:Why did Nixon ever try to get rid of this?

The fuel couldn't be used to make nuclear weapons, which lowered the tech's usefulness in Cold War America.

A reason as simple as it is sad.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:58 pm

Diopolis wrote:Good. Nuclear power is really the only way to cut emissions enough to deal with global warming.

Indeed. We just need to make people realize how safe modern reactors are.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Russels Orbiting Teapot
Senator
 
Posts: 4024
Founded: Jan 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:00 pm

Anything that helps China meet its energy needs without increasing the carbon in the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well, almost anything.

I mean, they shouldn't start generating power from the anguish of forsaken children, but this is probably good.

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:00 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Diopolis wrote:Good. Nuclear power is really the only way to cut emissions enough to deal with global warming.

Indeed. We just need to make people realize how safe modern reactors are.

Now if only we could get our environmentalists to actually support nuclear power instead of irrationally fearing it.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:00 pm

Hopefully this will convince some environmentalists to support nuclear power, but I doubt it.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Luziyca
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38290
Founded: Nov 13, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Luziyca » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:01 pm

Good idea, America. I hope we can get some in Canada too.
|||The Kingdom of Rwizikuru|||
Your feeble attempts to change the very nature of how time itself has been organized by mankind shall fall on barren ground and bear no fruit
WikiFacebookKylaris: the best region for eight years runningAbout meYouTubePolitical compass

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:02 pm

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Anything that helps China meet its energy needs without increasing the carbon in the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well, almost anything.

I mean, they shouldn't start generating power from the anguish of forsaken children, but this is probably good.

So are you saying that I shouldn't be using starving orphans on treadmills to power my flat-screen TV? :p
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:02 pm

Skappola wrote:
Scomagia wrote:Indeed. We just need to make people realize how safe modern reactors are.

Now if only we could get our environmentalists to actually support nuclear power instead of irrationally fearing it.

We need a stronger Nuclear Lobby. If we can convince enough people and politicians that the reactors are safe (which modern reactors are) and that switching to Nuclear Power will create jobs, we'd be well on our way.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Benuty
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37334
Founded: Jan 21, 2013
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Benuty » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:03 pm

Skappola wrote:
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Anything that helps China meet its energy needs without increasing the carbon in the atmosphere is a good thing.

Well, almost anything.

I mean, they shouldn't start generating power from the anguish of forsaken children, but this is probably good.

So are you saying that I shouldn't be using starving orphans on treadmills to power my flat-screen TV? :p

Given they have such a horrific imbalance of males, and females in the country there will be more in the older generation than there will be in the newer generation as long as selective abortion policies, and the one child policy are allowed.
Last edited by Hashem 13.8 billion years ago
King of Madness in the Right Wing Discussion Thread. Winner of 2016 Posters Award for Insanity. Please be aware my posts in NSG, and P2TM are separate.

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:05 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Skappola wrote:Now if only we could get our environmentalists to actually support nuclear power instead of irrationally fearing it.

We need a stronger Nuclear Lobby. If we can convince enough people and politicians that the reactors are safe (which modern reactors are) and that switching to Nuclear Power will create jobs, we'd be well on our way.

What's interesting about nuclear power is that it has a great potential to be bipartisan, unlike renewables and fossil fuels. If the word can be spread about these essentially meltdown-proof power plants before either side demonizes it, it could be the saving grace of developed world energy policies. (From a political perspective, that is)
Last edited by Skappola on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Second Blazing
Minister
 
Posts: 2503
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Blazing » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:07 pm

We should be building them here instead.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

User avatar
Celibrae
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1357
Founded: Oct 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Celibrae » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:09 pm

Geilinor wrote:Hopefully this will convince some environmentalists to support nuclear power, but I doubt it.


Blinded by their irrational fear of anything not "natural", I doubt it will either.

"Herpderp Chernobyl dun bad!"
"Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

User avatar
Russels Orbiting Teapot
Senator
 
Posts: 4024
Founded: Jan 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Russels Orbiting Teapot » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:11 pm

Second Blazing wrote:We should be building them here instead.


Why instead?

Why not 'also'?

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:14 pm

Skappola wrote:
Scomagia wrote:We need a stronger Nuclear Lobby. If we can convince enough people and politicians that the reactors are safe (which modern reactors are) and that switching to Nuclear Power will create jobs, we'd be well on our way.

What's interesting about nuclear power is that it has a great potential to be bipartisan, unlike renewables and fossil fuels. If the word can be spread about these essentially meltdown-proof power plants before either side demonizes it, it could be the saving grace of developed world energy policies. (From a political perspective, that is)

Exactly. It is a technology that appeals to most people. It's cleaner than most forms of energy, it will create jobs both during the construction of the plants and after, and it's safe. It is the only real option we have right now. Solar and wind, while wonderful in their own way, cannot meet our energy demands. Nuclear can and, if public opinion can get behind it, Nuclear will.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Second Blazing
Minister
 
Posts: 2503
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Second Blazing » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:16 pm

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
Second Blazing wrote:We should be building them here instead.


Why instead?

Why not 'also'?


Because enough American money and technology goes to China without us helping matters along.
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:18 pm

Second Blazing wrote:
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
Why instead?

Why not 'also'?


Because enough American money and technology goes to China without us helping matters along.

It's important for humanity as a whole that China gets its energy from a clean source. Don't be so shortsighted. This will benefit us in the long run, by demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of Nuclear Power (something I know you agree with) and by cutting down on the emissions from the world's largest polluter.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Skappola » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:22 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Skappola wrote:What's interesting about nuclear power is that it has a great potential to be bipartisan, unlike renewables and fossil fuels. If the word can be spread about these essentially meltdown-proof power plants before either side demonizes it, it could be the saving grace of developed world energy policies. (From a political perspective, that is)

Exactly. It is a technology that appeals to most people. It's cleaner than most forms of energy, it will create jobs both during the construction of the plants and after, and it's safe. It is the only real option we have right now. Solar and wind, while wonderful in their own way, cannot meet our energy demands. Nuclear can and, if public opinion can get behind it, Nuclear will.

Interestingly, the environmentalists demonizing it may have actually helped it in the long-term. If they had touted it as a bastion of progress like the renewables, the right would have made sure that public perception of it tanked like they did to the renewables. Now that the tech is becoming more developed, it can be shown off in at a much higher level of efficiency - unlike the half-baked level many of the renewables were at when they became popular. What the right cares about is cost per watt efficiency, which the more advanced forms of nuclear are beginning to provide. The Left cares about safety and cleanness, which the new forms of nuclear have improved on substantially.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:23 pm

Skappola wrote:
Scomagia wrote:Exactly. It is a technology that appeals to most people. It's cleaner than most forms of energy, it will create jobs both during the construction of the plants and after, and it's safe. It is the only real option we have right now. Solar and wind, while wonderful in their own way, cannot meet our energy demands. Nuclear can and, if public opinion can get behind it, Nuclear will.

Interestingly, the environmentalists demonizing it may have actually helped it in the long-term. If they had touted it as a bastion of progress like the renewables, the right would have made sure that public perception of it tanked like they did to the renewables. Now that the tech is becoming more developed, it can be shown off in at a much higher level of efficiency - unlike the half-baked level many of the renewables were at when they became popular. What the right cares about is cost per watt efficiency, which the more advanced forms of nuclear are beginning to provide. The Left cares about safety and cleanness, which the new forms of nuclear have improved on substantially.

It's the energy of The People, truly.
Insert trite farewell here

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A United American Empire, Dutch Socialist States, Einaro, Ifreann, Infected Mushroom, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nature and dragons, Statesburg, The Rich Port, Tremia, Zhiyouguo

Advertisement

Remove ads