Rumor mill has been that China was planning on their type 004 class aircraft carriers to use molten salt reactors as well. These were apparently planned to enter service around 2030. More recent rumors have suggested that the MSR program has been running behind schedule.
Anyhow, interesting dual use and program derisking thoughts there.
Molten salt reactors with circulating fuel salts are hopelessly complex and totally impractical. There is no way China will ever actually build this. To understand why take a look at the amount of robotic equipment required to maintain the primary loop of this reactor mockup at ORNL:
To be clear, the NS Savannah was a showpiece. It was part passenger, part freight in a way that made no economic sense but looked fantastic and showed the concept could work. It ultimately failed because it had to bear the brunt of port negotiations. But that's a policy hurdle.
The fact that we as a world economy are not significantly relying on nuclear power at this point is one of the biggest failures of climate change policy, if not the biggest failure ever. Yes, waste is a concern which needs to be managed responsibly. But at worst, the waste would only contaminate a finite area where it is stored. Climate change will affect literally everywhere on Earth. The US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record, yet people still fall victim to FUD insinuating that using nuclear is automatically asking for another Chernobyl or Fukushima. If you aren't serious about nuclear, you aren't serious about climate change.
I entirely agree with your big-picture analysis. However, that
> the US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record,
in no way implies that the notoriously fly-by-night shipping industry would achieve similar performance!
Also the largest historical concern about nuclear cargo ships has been proliferation: if a significant quantity of fissionable material is floating about (literally and metaphorically) in private hands, then it would become orders of magnitude easier for malicious non-state actors to get ahold of, with potentially disastrous consequences, on a world-historical scale. Given the instability, corruption, and hostility of various nuclear-armed states in the last couple of decades, that cat may already be out of the bag, and that concern could (and perhaps should) be disregarded. I don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Institutional conservatism in this area is, however, understandable.
> The US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record
Loss of the vessel is a unique concern for naval equipment. The reactors on the Scorpion and Thresher have been slowly diffusing into the environment for the past 50 years. I'd be interested to know how contamination from these compares to Fukushima.
> Yes, waste is a concern which needs to be managed responsibly.
More than that: if I understand correctly, there are some newer designs which can take the waste of older plants, 'burn' it while extracting more energy, leaving a smaller amount of less-problematic waste at the end.
For that reason alone we should be building some of those newer plants. If (beyond burning through older plants' waste) they are safer, more efficient and/or have a 'nicer' fuel cycle of their own: bonus.
But for cost / climate etc: probably too little, too late. Renewables + storage will do the job. And later on, bring in fusion.
It says they will use a molten salt reactor--has anyone made one of those work reliably? I don't actually know--I just have a vague sense that every molten salt reactor I've read about suffered from corrosion problems and had to be shut down.
Shipping industry could use nuclear. They’re large, in water, carry 1000s of containers. If all container ships are zero emission, that makes a decent difference in global emissions.
That statement does not make sense.
Container ships are transporting manufactured goods from China to other countries - US, EU, ROW.
If there are no shortage of container ships that means that those regions are experiencing economic downturn, not China.
Chinese economic downturns will result in "no shortage of" ships that carry raw materials.
The problem is the vast amount of pollution that those ships generate. In theory this alternative would provide the same service with far less ecological impact. Actually getting modern nuclear reactors to perform as expected has resulted in complications.
icegreentea2|2 years ago
Anyhow, interesting dual use and program derisking thoughts there.
goodSteveramos|2 years ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uHT-w2x6dDg
sickofparadox|2 years ago
acidburnNSA|2 years ago
Also, she's currently for sale if you're interested. If they don't find a buyer it'll be scrapped.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
To be clear, the NS Savannah was a showpiece. It was part passenger, part freight in a way that made no economic sense but looked fantastic and showed the concept could work. It ultimately failed because it had to bear the brunt of port negotiations. But that's a policy hurdle.
psunavy03|2 years ago
eszed|2 years ago
> the US Navy has operated reactors for 70 years with a perfect safety record,
in no way implies that the notoriously fly-by-night shipping industry would achieve similar performance!
Also the largest historical concern about nuclear cargo ships has been proliferation: if a significant quantity of fissionable material is floating about (literally and metaphorically) in private hands, then it would become orders of magnitude easier for malicious non-state actors to get ahold of, with potentially disastrous consequences, on a world-historical scale. Given the instability, corruption, and hostility of various nuclear-armed states in the last couple of decades, that cat may already be out of the bag, and that concern could (and perhaps should) be disregarded. I don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Institutional conservatism in this area is, however, understandable.
itishappy|2 years ago
Loss of the vessel is a unique concern for naval equipment. The reactors on the Scorpion and Thresher have been slowly diffusing into the environment for the past 50 years. I'd be interested to know how contamination from these compares to Fukushima.
RetroTechie|2 years ago
More than that: if I understand correctly, there are some newer designs which can take the waste of older plants, 'burn' it while extracting more energy, leaving a smaller amount of less-problematic waste at the end.
For that reason alone we should be building some of those newer plants. If (beyond burning through older plants' waste) they are safer, more efficient and/or have a 'nicer' fuel cycle of their own: bonus.
But for cost / climate etc: probably too little, too late. Renewables + storage will do the job. And later on, bring in fusion.
maxhille|2 years ago
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/28/solar-surging-58-in-2...
RecycledEle|2 years ago
I suspect China will care very little about our silly regulations.
I hope they make a lot of things work that our C-suite lawyers and MBAs never understood the math on.
nielsbot|2 years ago
acidburnNSA|2 years ago
Just start with a time-honed PWR to decarbonize now and deal with the uncertainty and challenge of MSR development as a potential upgrade for later.
MSRs need tons of development. See ORNL-5018 https://doi.org/10.2172/4227904
marssaxman|2 years ago
nojvek|2 years ago
Shipping industry could use nuclear. They’re large, in water, carry 1000s of containers. If all container ships are zero emission, that makes a decent difference in global emissions.
andrewstuart|2 years ago
dmz73|2 years ago
m0llusk|2 years ago
effnorwood|2 years ago
[deleted]