[dogma1138]

And again what does this has to do with Thorium? On one hand you propose a liquid metal salt reactor which doesn't have to be using thorium, on the other hand you insist on using older designs with slower burn rates which require the use of water as coolants and cannot be coupled with super-critical boilers to run gas-turbines.

No nuclear technology is perfect, no nuclear technology is intrinsically safe even if you have a WAS (Walkaway Safe) reactor design.

The idea of reactors like the BN-800, BN-1200 and other ->/= Gen 4 reactors is to couple efficient electricity production, multiple fuel cycles to reduce waste, a walkaway safe design paradigms to reduce the likelihood and the impact of a run away reaction while building on top of 70 years of experience.

I'm not an expert on the French nuclear industry and considering that the French pretty much proliferated nuclear tech to half the planet i would say their reactor designs is the least of their sins.

But picking up some competing design from the 50's and saying that it's the answer for all of our problems is just criminally naive there are tons of competing designs for 4 Gen reactors and reactors that cannot be even tied to a specific evolutionary generation some of them are safer than the "proposed" Thorium reactor, some of them give better answer to nuclear waste, some of propose to build the reactor as a nuclear waste containment vessel and pretty much have like a roman candle like design that can be then left in the ground after all 3 fuel cycles have been depleted, some offer very high thermal to electrical wattage ratios so saying X is the best is just scientifically wrong.

[crocal]

I never wrote Thorium was the one final solution but "a" solution. And I also wrote that there would be challenges. I replied to a question about whether such design existed. If other fuels can be used than Thorium, that is fine with me. My main points are not about Thorium at all. I know there are other avenues (though certainly not as well as you do).

So then let's not use words like "criminal" when people just consider alternate designs, new or ancient, maybe?

[dogma1138]

No but you make it sound like the BN-800 is a traditional water cooled reactor from the 50's designed to produce bombs which it's not. It's a liquid metal fast breeder reactor with a triple fuel cycle, Russian reactor design is quite advanced, pretty much most common Gen 4 designs are based on mid 1980's Russian reactor designs like the BN series.

The BN-800 uses Sodium as it's primary coolant and like the LMS design it's quite walk away safe if there is a run away reaction in the core there will be no pressure jump since sodium boils at 881c (The coolant's boiling point will be over 1000'c since it's not pure sodium). Since Sodium can undergo neutron activation it also serves a secondary role of being a neutron absorber which slows the run away reaction naturally.

The BN-800 is also the 1st commercial reactor to actually use a mixed uranium-plutonium fuel which is intended to safely repurpose the stockpile of weapons grade plutonium. And while it's is classified as a breeder reactor it's not a military reactor (It is also Russia's first reactor to be classified as a pure civilian installation), it breed's it's own fuel for the secondary fuel cycles and most importantly generates PU-238 and most medical isotopes which we are in quite a desperate shortage off (especially PU-238 which NASA now has ran out of pretty much).

The problem with most people who are crying about nuclear technology is that they really haven't got a clue on what's being built, what is being designed, and what we've already experienced with and learnt from. While i would not want to live near a nuclear reactor since well it give me the hibbie jibbies no matter if it's a liquid molten salt thorium reactor or a 1950's smokey bear that can go boom at any moment. Nuclear energy compared to coal, oil and gas has far less environmental implications even if we experience a Chernobyl every 2-3 decades.