[walleeee]

> You really believe it would have been possible to construct a modern wind turbine with the materials available in 1950?

Sure, modern materials make for a more modern wind turbine. But they don't shift the paradigm. Nothing has since fission, right?

> Wind, solar and batteries are products of an energy intensive process NOT a combustion based process.

The fact remains that energy intensive industry is currently accomplished mainly via combustion. The degree of electrification is small and an effort to fully electrify faces what appear to be prohibitive resource limitations. If you have any ideas on this point I would be interested to hear them.

Electrification is happening in personal transport. We have made minimal progress towards an electric shipping fleet, electric air travel, electric trucking, etc. And if we do begin to make serious progress, it will come with serious environmental (and likely political) costs.

Oak Ridge was a testbed. The Chinese have an MSR that has been selling power to the grid for several years. Copenhagen Atomics is building them to fit into shipping containers. Is this not enough to prove the technology viable? The main reason traditional fission became dominant, as I understand, is that it allowed nuclear-capable nations to conceal nuclear weapons programs with energy programs. And once the supply chain and institutional expertise gets some inertia, it is hard to change tracks.

[derriz]

Modern wind turbines absolutely have shifted the paradigm - both in size, efficiency and durability. Across the globe, demand for new turbines in the market is insatiable. No other electricity generation technology (even nuclear in its heyday back in the 1980s) has grown as fast as wind has in the last 15 years - although I expect it's soon to be overtaken by PV growth. It's likely that this year the amount of electricity consumed globally from wind turbines (around 2.5TWh) will match that of nuclear reactors despite nuclear's 60 year head start in grid scale operations.

But the most obvious difference, and that which contributes most to the paradigm shift, is the difference in price.

The existence of technology alone isn't enough to shift any paradigm - the tech has to be relatively cheap - transistors were a curiosity until they became cheap and then they shifted the paradigm, same thing happened with integrated circuits and nearly every technology breakthrough in history.

Batteries, PV and wind turbines are mass-produced and their prices are falling as you'd expect given the expansion in production (between 80% and 95% in the last 15 years). This has been the way since Henry Ford and is not going to change. What is also inevitable is that once mass-production is introduced into any human endeavour, then the existing technology is doomed.

The TMSR-LF1 in China has not being selling into the grid for several years. It was never envisaged to do so - it's absolutely tiny (only 2MW) and it's intended that it will operate intermittently for the first 5 or more years before they try running it continuously. This is a science experiment, not a viable commercial reactor. The 2nd Oak Ridge reactor back in the 1960s was 7 or 8 times bigger - although it never managed to run properly and only ever achieved 7MW of output.

I really don't understand why thorium liquid salt reactor enthusiasm is widespread. It's just one of endless reactor designs which failed to make it into commercial operation because of a host of genuine technical/engineering reasons. Just read the wikipedia page[1] - the list of disadvantages is longer than the list of advantages. For every problem it solves, it introduces several more.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor

[walleeee]

It's not enough to count the problems in the list, you also weigh the ones it solves against those it introduces. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but none of the issues seem insurmountable, and some are addressed in modern designs. I see a few big advantages:

1) Apparently much lower resource requirements for construction, maintenance, and mining/refining the fuel, than for traditional nuclear power, and also (!) the wind and solar equivalent. We don't have the metals, as far as we know, to maintain a fleet of wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries for very long without an almost perfect recycling rate.

2) Some designs can consume spent nuclear fuel. This is a more cost-effective (and more sane) option for disposing nuclear waste than burying it.

3) Steady availability. Wind and solar are unreliable, so you need a buffer, which means batteries (or pumped hydro, or rapidly spinning hunks of metal, or something).

Mass production is a force to be reckoned with, and the cost of wind and solar has fallen relative to other power sources, but given the dominance (still) of combustion, this not only reflects economies of scale in manufacturing wind/solar equipment, which I don't by any means deny, but it reflects also the rising costs of of legacy fuels. It is not getting easier to find coal, oil, or many of the metals we use to manufacture energy systems and the material economies they sustain.

It seems to me we need an energy system that can function reliably in a world facing resource shortages and other stressors, and in this context smaller scale, modular power plants may even be an advantage.

I know TMSR-LF1 is small and a research program; I thought it had sold some power, but might have been misinformed