https://archive.is/2nQSh

It marks the first long-term, stable operation of the technology, putting China at the forefront of a global race to harness thorium – considered a safer and more abundant alternative to uranium – for nuclear power.

The experimental reactor, located in the Gobi Desert in China’s west, uses molten salt as the fuel carrier and coolant, and thorium – a radioactive element abundant in the Earth’s crust – as the fuel source. The reactor is reportedly designed to sustainably generate 2 megawatts of thermal power.

  • eleitl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Too bad we do not know which exactly thorium salt mixes they are using, what the materials facing the molten salt at high neutron fluxes are and how they fare long term, whether they use on-site constant or batched fuel reprocessing, whether they kickstarted the reactor with enrichened uranium or reactor-grade plutonium waste and other such questions.

    US experiments were broken off because of materials corrosion problem.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      US experiments were broken off because it gives no excuse to attain materials for nuclear weapons. Same excuse everyone else use.

      • eleitl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Thorium fuel cycle is useful for weapon production. Germany also abandoned thorium despite no interest in weapon production.

    • fullsquare@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      i think that lack of willingness to handle fresh fission products has a part in this, in normal reactor you can just do nothing and win (bulk of most dangerous isotopes decays completely within 5y, not possible to do this with MSR)

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s probably as simple as we already have something successful. Why spend time and effort overcoming the challenges to create new reactor technology with many of the same benefits and shortcomings as we already have?

        I know the arguments for thorium and can see that being a huge benefit to places without a mature nuclear industry and without developed fuel sources.

        Sure it would be somewhat better for us as well, but the biggest limitations will be the same. You’re still impeded by fears of radioactivity even if it is less. You still have radioactive waste to handle even if it’s less and less long lasting. You still have legal and regulatory challenges driving costs and timelines through the roof. Thorium hasn’t won the war of public perception, so is no better in the things that actually impede its use

      • eleitl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Some of the new Russian reactor types are designed to burn away dangerous hot actinides. MSR need onboard fuel processing to continue to operate anyway.

        • fullsquare@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          These are fast reactors and operate on different principles. The coolant there is sodium and while hard to design and run, it’s doable. French had similar reactor but only one and it was shut down. Nice thing about fast reactors is that these can burn even-numbered isotopes of plutonium, useless in water moderated reactor, and give fresh mostly 239Pu plutonium of good quality. weapons grade even, and IAEA doesn’t like it. But who cares since nonproliferation is dead anyway?

      • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think maybe also the fact that nuclear fusion is definitely frfr only a few years away from being viable, no cap, has contributed to a lack of fission research, too.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sounds like the US should take a page from China’s playbook and steal the design, then claim to have built it on their own.