[manvillej]

reddit had a nice list of the pros and cons: https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/17k0wcc/natri...

I understand the risks around sodium, but the "passive natural circulation cooling" I don't understand. Is it more feasible with this design and why?

" Pros:

    high temperature means we can use process-heat which is a much more efficient use of heat.

    fast spectrum neutrons means we can burn importantly troublesome parts of nuclear waste.

    fast spectrum is also better for breeding new fuel, significantly increasing how much energy we can extract from uranium/thorium.

    passive natural circulation cooling is much more feasible.

Cons:

    fast spectrum is a little more complicated to control.

    fast reactors require high enrichment.

    inspection of the plant is very difficult with liquid metal.

    high temperature liquid metal doesn't play nicely with metal pipes.

    sodium burns in air and is explosive with water.

    we simply do not have nearly as much experience with sodium as we do water and that really cannot be understated.
"

[nine_k]

I suppose that "passive natural circulation cooling" means that plain convection of the coolant(s) is sufficient to cool the reactor, without involving pumps which could fail. Convection can't fail as long as there is coolant and no significant obstacles.

[UltraSane]

Russia has been operating a sodium-cooled fast reactor for 45 years.