My responses to Decades After Chernobyl, Wildlife Thriving Inside Exclusion Zone, by Nick Visser http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chernobyl-wildlife-study_5612c8b4e4b076812702dbe0 Park Overall · Tusculum College Lars Taylor and, no one is mentioning the 1000 mile...
Responses to LWR comments in Discover Magazine article, how Molten Salt Reactors would cost less with greater safety.
Molten Salt Reactor Advantages
(Scroll to see all) Molten Fuel; Salt Cooled; Inherent Safety; Easy Construction & Siting; Lower Cost; Industrial Heat
Molten Fuel - Fuel circulates through the reactor, fission products get removed, for over 99% fuel use (vs. LWR ~3%). No long-term radioactive waste.
Salt Cooled - Coolant far below boiling point, reactor operates at atmospheric pressure. Molten fuel chemically bound to stable salt; no water; no loss of coolant accident possible. No need for high-pressure safety systems.
High Inherent Safety - No water, no high pressure, nothing that could propel radioactive materials into the environment. Thermal expansion/contraction of molten fuel salt strongly regulates fission rate; MSR is a very stable reactor. Simple safety systems work even if no electricity or operators.
Easy Construction and Siting - Low pressure operation, so no high-pressure safety systems. No water, so no steam containment building. Reactor factory assembled, with modern quality control, sensors and communication.
Lower Cost - Even with exotic materials, construction costs will be dramatically lower than LWR — factory construction, minimal manual on-site preparation. No long-term radioactive waste, so no long-term storage.
High Temperature Operation - Heat to generate electricity, desalinate water, produce CO2-neutral vehicle fuel, etc.