Replies

You open with a straw man, weak sauce. I am proposing burning waste as fuel, that was the whole point of my responses to you.

It doesn’t have to be stored for thousands of years if it is burned as fuel, which, again, is my entire point. You seem to be the one with a huge “DUH” coming out of your keyboard.

Please explain to the class how a molten salt reactor goes “kaflooey” or admit you have no idea how intrinsically safe reactor designs are feasible and inexpensive.

You brought up China, claiming they weren’t pursuing molten salt. Now you are spewing some childish incoherency when I point out you are mistaken.

And of course you make zero technical counterclaims and provide zero links to back up your infantile responses about “intersections” and “insurance”.

I’m done with you.

You open with a straw man, weak sauce.
***WHere is the strawman argument, sauceman?

I am proposing burning waste as fuel, that was the whole point of my responses to you.
***It would have made sense for you to actually SAY that was your “whole point”. It is an expensive but intriguing solution. Once the cost of it is counted, Fission becomes far more expensive than coal or NatGas or even solar with batteries.

It doesn’t have to be stored for thousands of years if it is burned as fuel,
***You still have to clean up the reactor after it’s decomissioned.

which, again, is my entire point.
***And yet, you wandered time and again from your “entire” point.

You seem to be the one with a huge “DUH” coming out of your keyboard.
***Yes, My DUHHH comment is aimed towards people like YOU who can’t seem to comprehend some very simple salients.

Please explain to the class
***Now hold on a moment. You said at the bottom that you were done with me. But here you want me to explain sumthin or other.

how a molten salt reactor goes “kaflooey”
***You’re trying to keep elements apart that WANT to be together. Mankind is error prone and cheapskatey. So eventually the safety protocols get bypassed, the mistakes get made and ya got elements going together due to their attraction, which creates a meltdown. It HAS happened with water reactors, it CAN happen with salt reactors but I grant that it is less likely. How MUCH less likely? I would leave that to the insurance companies who fund the liability due to accidents — notably not a single one of them in the 1950s would back the nuke industry until the guvmint stepped in providing subsidies. Once you remove those subsidies [or count the cost of them ultimately], then fission power becomes extremely expensive.

or admit you have no idea how intrinsically safe reactor designs are feasible
***If it is “intrinsically safe” then it’s automatically feasible. The problem is that fission itself is NOT instrinsically safe, and also that you STILL have to decommission the reactor at the end of its days.

and inexpensive.
***If it were as “intrinsically safe” and inexpensive as you claim, there’d be hundreds of them in operation in the USA. But they are neither intrinsically safe nor inexpensive.

You brought up China, claiming they weren’t pursuing molten salt.
***I did? Where?

Now you are spewing some childish incoherency when I point out you are mistaken.
***China doesn’t care about its citizens, doesn’t care about pollution, only really cares about how cheap the solution is and doesn’t want to luze face over implementation AFAICT. Why don’t you just kiss off with this path of insulting? Your interest is in causing invective rather than openly discussing a technology, that’s why.

And of course you make zero technical counterclaims
***I make as many counterclaims as you make claims. This is a fusion thread, not a molten salt fission thread.

and provide zero links to back up your infantile responses about “intersections” and “insurance”.
***I have done so in the past and guys like you ignore them. The insurance angle is well known in the industry.

I’m done with you.
***Except that you WEREN’T done with me. Tell the class how and why that was the case. Go on.