China + Russia: we should build some form of power generator in space to supply our space program
America: Vuvuzela drugs dictator, let’s go to war
Everyone else:
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to use solar panels?
What if a meltdown occured?I imagine that SMR is much more compact than equivalent solar panels you’d need to ferry to the moon to get the same amount of energy. Meanwhile, there are designs like molten salt reactors which use liquid fuel and completely bypass the meltdown issue. Broadly for other Gen IV designs and newer LWR designs, passive safety systems and inherent reactivity feedbacks are the main drivers of making meltdowns basically impossible along with newer fuel types like TRISO being meltdown proof.
A metal fueled SFR for example has an extremely strong negative temperature coefficient for reactivity, essentially if the coolant temperature goes up, the nature of the fuel causes the reactor power to naturally drop without any operator intervention. This concept was proven by EBR-II back in the day.
Designs like that also have passive air cooling systems that rely only on natural circulation. No fans/blowers, valves, or other active components are needed to drive airflow. The temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet will naturally drive air through the system, again without any input from operators.
The problem with molten salt designs is they eat the pipes transporting the molten salt. They require lots of maintenance to replace those pipes. That’s why no one has made an economicly viable molten salt reactor yet.
China’s been operating a reactor for a while now, and making it economically viable is only a matter of time. At the end of the day it’s a materials problem.
https://www.powermag.com/chinas-molten-salt-reactor-reaches-thorium-uranium-conversion-milestone/
It’s a materials problem that has persisted for decades. The US ran a thorium reactor for nearly 20 years and couldn’t make it work, but that was shut down in the 60s. I’m not holding my breath.
The reason the US had no interest in making thorium reactors work was because thorium has no military application. China has already shown they can make plenty of stuff work that the US was unable to make work. A country with 1.4 billion people, an excellent education system, and strong state funding for STEM can do a lot of things that the burger reich can’t figure out.
No, that’s not it. It was never economically viable. They had to use ultra expensive exotic materials to make it work. No one outside a lab wanted it, and the project proved the point. Oak Ridge and other military facilities could produce all the weaponized material the US needs, they don’t care about private industry producing it.
Whether something is economically viable or not depends on how much time you spend developing the technology. Many materials in common usage today were exotic when they were first invented. Then economies of scale kicked in and prices went down. The US simply failed to invest into this technology. That’s the reality. China also has a long track record doing state level investment without seeking any immediate profit. The high speed rail system is a good example. Western media kept talking about how it wasn’t profitable, and that didn’t stop China from continuing to build it. There’s been no end of articles like this. And all of them completely missed the point that HSR is a long term investment that drives economic growth across the country.
Similarly, building thorium reactors is not a short term profit target. It’s a long term investment into energy security. Molten salt reactors can be built anywhere because they don’t require a large body of water nearby for cooling. They are extremely safe, there is no problem with long term waste, and China has abundant thorium reserves. That makes solving the materials problem an attractive proposition.
