Skip to comments.
Molten Salt Reactors enjoy 15 minutes of fame
neimagazine ^
| 11 June 2014
Posted on 06/29/2014 7:17:33 AM PDT by ckilmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
1
posted on
06/29/2014 7:17:33 AM PDT
by
ckilmer
To: ckilmer
I believe it's pronounced "Morton Salt"
2
posted on
06/29/2014 7:21:52 AM PDT
by
P.O.E.
(Pray for America)
To: ckilmer
molten salt reactors would cut the cost of electricity to 1/4-1/10 the current lowest cost coal produced electricity . This would make electricity for electric cars cheap but it would also make it cheap to do in situ mining for oil shale in the green river basin and thereby take the cost of oil shale production from the $80@ barrel range to the $40@ barrel range.
3
posted on
06/29/2014 7:22:35 AM PDT
by
ckilmer
(q)
To: ckilmer
whats the “15 minutes of fame” all about?
that implies the idea came and went in short order. i don’t think thats what the article meant to say. the idea is still viable?
To: P.O.E.
Special people deserve special things.
To: ckilmer
6
posted on
06/29/2014 7:29:58 AM PDT
by
Sgt_Schultze
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
To: Sgt_Schultze
7
posted on
06/29/2014 7:32:40 AM PDT
by
Sgt_Schultze
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
To: ckilmer
We are so burdened with regulation, second-guessing, and government interference.
Why should it take 35 YEARS to develop this technology. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years. We developed a nuclear bomb in half that. 35 years we went from the first personal computer to computers in every last thing on the planet.
But it will take 35 years to develop something based on well-understood physics?
They were talking about this 2 years ago. Why don’t we have a test bed running today? Or do we?
To: ckilmer
9
posted on
06/29/2014 7:42:44 AM PDT
by
G Larry
(Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
To: beebuster2000
I think what the author meant to convey was that Thorium Reactors are currently in the ‘limelight’.
Since it is the UK, maybe that would be ‘limeylight’.
“: )
10
posted on
06/29/2014 7:49:45 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Or do we?Or did we?
(answer is yes, per above post)
11
posted on
06/29/2014 7:53:25 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
To: Sgt_Schultze
I’m sold, the passive shutdown sold me the rest is just gravy. I will however google to see if there is a downside.
12
posted on
06/29/2014 7:53:53 AM PDT
by
jpsb
(Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
To: G Larry
The testing showed it to be SAFER, CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT than any other nuclear power reactors so.... our government drilled a hole in the bottom, drained it and shut it down.
Makes sense.
13
posted on
06/29/2014 7:56:34 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
To: Fightin Whitey
14
posted on
06/29/2014 7:58:45 AM PDT
by
Vaduz
To: jpsb
I will however google to see if there is a downside.I'll save you the time.
The downside is that it would put the current 'green' energy projects in jeopardy, and risk the fortunes of the corrupt ruling elite.
That is why it was shut down the first time it was tried.
15
posted on
06/29/2014 8:00:15 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Why should it take 35 YEARS to develop this technology. (don't tell anybody but it was started 35 years ago)
16
posted on
06/29/2014 8:02:08 AM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
To: ckilmer
oil shale in the green river basin ...and according to the USGS weighs in at 3 Trillion Barrels.
17
posted on
06/29/2014 8:03:41 AM PDT
by
spokeshave
(OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
To: ckilmer
I recall that the US Navy equipped a submarine with an experimental liquid sodium reactor back in the 1950s.
18
posted on
06/29/2014 8:06:20 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: UCANSEE2
The testing showed it to be SAFER, CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT than any other nuclear power reactors so.... our government drilled a hole in the bottom, drained it and shut it down. Actually because it creates no plutonium byproducts, and the military dominated the decision-making process at that time.
19
posted on
06/29/2014 8:08:33 AM PDT
by
Mr. Jeeves
([CTRL-GALT-DELETE])
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson