WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

This more or less has been solved. We developed the technology to address the issues years back. Obama then "gifted" this technology to India and China. China is preparing (or already has) spun up a MSR. All of these issues are addressable. The real issue with thorium MSRs is it makes it difficult to create weapons grade fuels from the reactor. At least originally. Now, however, it creates a stable nuclear base, which would establish nuclear as the stable base it is. And this is the last thing they want to do for European countries. Wind and solar is the priority push as China disproportionately benefits while it destroys our own grids and economies.

Examples: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-molten-salt-reactor-cleared-for-start-up

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

https://southasianvoices.org/indias-venture-into-molten-salt-reactors/

[–] 2 pts (edited )

I agree they want to keep Europe dependent on foreign energy. That's the main lever of power they need to continue to ethnically cleanse Europe of Whites if they lose control of European governments to ethnic nationalist leaders.

I'm not sure the corrosion problem has been fully solved though.

[–] 1 pt

For a while I was watching MSR conference videos. A decade ago they were pretty sure. Entire industries have primed the pump with new metallurgy, sensors, monitoring, and technologies to track to make sure everything is as should be inside these reactors. It is fair to say, last I observed, the issue isn't completely resolved (as in, can't run 30 years without maintenance). It is, however, capable or running for many years (maybe a decade or more) with the expectations of wear and sacrificial components with the expectation of upgrades down the road. In short, we have the technology to run MSRs today. Much of which was gifted to our military and or economic competitors.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

I think the technology makes a lot more sense for smaller, modular reactors that aren't designed to be used for 50-70 years. You could build them next to every major city. Because the waste and meltdown risk is effectively null, it wouldn't be as big a deal with zoning and you wouldn't have as much power loss to transmission either.