Egregoros

@fluffy @p Ha ha, actually I do believe nuclear plants are a large part of the short term solution but one particular type of nuclear reactor, a molten salt fast-flux breeder reactor. The reason being a combination of inherent safety by the very physics of the plant, it's relative efficiency, it's lack of need for water, it's lower physical land requirements relative to other plant types, and it's ability to use long term actinide waste from existing plants as fuel, recover more than 20x as much energy from the waste as the original plant did from the fuel, produce waste that isn't bomb grade or readily made into bomb grade material, do reprocessing on site so little opportunity for terrorists to intercept transport, among other things.

As for outlawing JavaScript, I would extend that to any language using garbage collection for memory management and any interpretive language that didn't use at least a just in time compiler with caching.

@nanook @fluffy

> The Chinese pattern has always been build one, prove it works, built a thousand so I am confident that they will.

That is how scale works, yes. That's not the Chinese method, that's everyone's method.

"It works" and "It works at scale" and "We can build the scale" are all different questions and they did the first one. If they do the rest, sure, that's great. I'm interested in cheap nuclear energy. As far as the likelihood that they do or do not do this, a nuclear power plant is not like building a cell phone. Maybe unforeseen problems occur. Maybe they don't.

Right now, though, no one has built thorium salt reactors at scale. That's it. I understand you would like them to be real and viable and I would like them to be real and viable but that has yet to be demonstrated so I am waiting. I am not building nuclear power plants at present so I have no influence on the outcome.

@nanook @fluffy I have heard you say that you think it is going to be easy. If it were easy, they'd already have a thousand plants. Unless Kirk Sorensen stood up a thousand plants, it's all unproven.

Making one of something is very different from making a hundred of it. I will believe that they can make a hundred when they make a hundred. Right now, it seems possible, it may even seem plausible, but it is not *done*. Telling me that they can is not going to affect my belief in whether or not they will do it, and there is no reason to convince me, since neither of us can affect the outcome.

There is also no reason: if you are reasonably convinced, then I will agree with you in a couple of years. There's no reason to hurry, is there? Do I need to have a positive belief in the practicality of scaling up thorium reactors *before* the thorium reactors are scaled up?

I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.

If you try to build one in a 1st world country, there's so much regulation that it's just not going to happen.

If you try to build one in a non-1st world country, you're gonna get bombed because "muh nuclear proliferation".

China is working on it, but they're probably facing quiet international backlash because once the cat's out of the bag, everyone is going to want one...

It's basically like Free Energy suppression, except it actually happens.

@cjd @p @nanook
>I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.

it's a matter of finance.
as an intern, i ran numbers for an investment firm my first year of grad school.

it's really just not profitable to build nukes. they take a long time to build and they cost a lot.

if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it, nobody is stopping you from putting down a power plant on a strip of land, i worked with solar farms a few years ago there is basically no barrier to entry for those guys you just pay the money and wire it into the grid.

> if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it

And then men with guns come and take away your house.

You were doing the math on a pressurized water reactor, and all of the safety equipment that is expected when you have hot radioactive stuff under high pressure.

If you use molten fuel (not even a thorium breeder, just plain old boring uranium), you have no pressure to deal with, you could use ceramic pipes, a ceramic Archimedes pump, so basically you need beryllium and lithium fluoride, ceramic clay, u233, high purity graphite, a boiler & steam turbine, and lots and lots of concrete.

None of those things are that costly. They're not *cheap*, but they're not expensive in comparison to being able to crank out like 30kw of power all day and all night.

If it weren't for regulation, there'd be youtubers doing this, I'm sure of it.

@cjd @nanook @p
>if it weren't for regulation
>guys with guns
i can tell you what it looks like on our side: you model it the way you model something like an earthquake, it's just a risk priced into the operational cost.

from what i recall, this risk-adjusted cost was not substantial. this directly contradicts your thesis that "guys with guns" regulation is the barrier.

>if you use thorium
i've long been aware of internet guys talking about thorium reactors. it wasn't something we had data for. the tech is interesting, and i hope it takes off and is everything people promise. i also really like the idea of a fusion reactor.

one thing i will remark is, if thorium is as good as people are saying, why is nobody building more of them? you can just build power plants: it's not any different from building an apartment complex or running a machine shop, anyone can do it.
regulation or not, if it was as incredible as people bill it, people would be building them en masse, you couldn't stop me from building ten thorium reactors, it's literally free money. but that's not what we see happening.

> thorium

There are two different things here, one is molten fuel and the other is thorium breeding.

Molten fuel is a really big deal because you lose the pressure, so then you don't need any pressure vessels, containment, etc. If it's a slow reactor like the MSRE they ran in the 60s, you have a graphite core and hot molten salt with uranium dissolved in it. When the salt passes through the core, the graphite moderates the neutrons which causes reaction and it gets hot, when it's not in the core, it doesn't.

The other really big deal about molten fuel is that it's a liquid, so chemists can do chemistry on it, like for example extracting the waste (and just the waste) and then putting the other 95% good fuel back in to run again. PWRs retire fuel pellets when they're no longer good for reacting, which is when they're about 5% degraded.

The challenge with molten salt is it corrodes things, and that nobody can get permits to build it. There are like 4 or 5 companies trying to build them in the west and it's all just held up on permits.

Thorium is a whole other topic. The thing about thorium is that it's really really abundant, and if you bombard it with neutrons, it will transform into uranium 233. So people have the idea of surrounding the reactor with a layer of thorium to absorb the wasted neutrons and convert it whilst running the normal uranium reaction. But this is not necessary for molten salt, it's just a stretch goal. Uranium is already like $60 a pound which is basically dirt cheap for the amounts you actually need.

The MSRE did not breed thorium, but Alvin Weinberg (administrator of the MSRE and also inventor of everybody's favorite PWR) suggested that it could.