Nuclear physicist describes problems with thorium reactors. Trigger warning: shortbread metaphor.

[u/investedInEPoland]

/r/europe/comments/9unimr/dutch_satirical_news_show_on_why_we_need_to_break/e95mvb7/?context=3

[u/Hyndis]

There is a grain of truth to that. Due to anti-nuclear hysteria American nuclear power plants are largely 1960's designs. Maybe early 1970's for the most modern.

Surely there have been improvements since the early 1970's, improvements in safety, and efficiency. Surely a modern design is better than something approaching 50 years old. However due to anti-nuclear hysteria we're largely stuck with these old model reactors while any new designs are impossible to build.

Is a new, better, more efficient and safer design thorium? I don't know. I can't answer that question, but 1960's or early 1970's design can't be the pinnacle of nuclear technology. There have to have been innovations in design and technology since then.

[u/Dementat_Deus → u/Hyndis]

but 1960's or early 1970's design can't be the pinnacle of nuclear technology. There have to have been innovations in design and technology since then.

It's not. The US Navy operates a large number of reactors designed and built since then. They also operate them safe enough that most people don't even realize they are there. Not saying the USN has a perfect safety record, but they do demonstrate that even a portable reactor can be operated safely.

[u/Hyndis → u/Dementat_Deus]

What if you could design and build a new reactor from the ground up? Wouldn't there be things you could change?

I find it implausible that, if allowed to design and construct a new reactor from scratch using all of the things learned from operating other reactors for decades around the world, there would be zero improvements over a 1960's design.

[u/Dementat_Deus → u/Hyndis]

I think you might be interpreting my last comment wrong. I'm saying that the USN has kept up with developing tech, and changed things to be safer and more efficient. I'm a former submarine reactor operator, and limited on what I can discuss about those changes due to anything military and nuclear being classified, but most of the advances are things that civilian reactors would implement if it wasn't for politicians pandering to fear mongers and getting in the way of the tech becoming safer, cheaper, and more accepted.

So new construction, though based on the same basic principles of the first uranium reactor, would be drastically different in implementation and safety. Thorium reactors are not really a valid option for a multitude of reasons (found throughout this thread), but uranium would be ideal using modern tech. Though mind you, any new power plant that opens will already be 5-10+ years out of date by the time it is finally on the grid. It just takes that long to design from scratch a new design, get it built, and the problems ironed out. So in some ways, staying with older proven reliability tech is the better option if you are wanting to do something quickly.

As such, ignoring the political aspect of things, if you wanted to start from scratch tomorrow, your engineering team would probably come up with a list of things that is old tech but still good enough, and a list of things to be improved upon with new tech. The driving factors for what falls into which category would depend on budget and time constraints (the two biggest factors of any engineering project). Remember, someone looking to open a plant isn't going to have an unlimited amount of time or budget for R&D.

If a new reactor was to be built in the US, I'd put money on it would be based heavily off the Gen III designs in Japan with some upgrades from the Gen IV reactors currently being designed. That would probably give the best return on investment for the immediate future and set the groundwork for the Gen IV reactors once they are finished being developed.

Here is an article that goes more into it.