not as good as nuclear fusion

technically speaking

@shrikeclaw - I'm guessing male prostitute? Twink? Femboy?

we dont even strictly need storag

we could just recycle the fuel

but fusion is fantasy

Nigga has rocks as his pfp so I'm going with geology

its too cost prohibitive tho

nah, break your heart, right?

spot on, samaritan

again yes all of those factors are a function of a 1950s design

Professional Stay At Home Son

Fucking boom

a modern reactor doesn't have to have those drawbacks

another advantage of molten salts

some of my classmates worked there

a modern reactor still produces waste dude

and molten salts dont exist

lol

How many modern reactors are there, what is the grade A example we should all look to

there are modern reactors all over the world

but none of them are molten salt

so dont worry about it

molten salts DO exist, the reactor design has just not be built full scale

most modern reactors just have vastly improved safety designs

yes meaning they have the same fundamental flaws

@Lucienne d'Anwyl - Salt melts when it gets hot.

That's literally a principle behind several nuclear power plant and energy storage designs. Dump enough heat into the salt to make it melt, and it becomes a viscous liquid that can be moved around.

same fuel cycle

you know mananimal

same closed loop water coolant design

what else exists in testing?

halite Melting point 800.7°C

fusion reactors

i wouldnt say fusion reactors exist tho

good luck with that

as any kind of useful thing lol

not the same thing

Fusion isn't going to be possible in a sustainable manner

not anytime soon

they have run an ACTUAL molten salt reactor at Oakidge

and it didnt end up going so well