ThorCon nuclear reactor/Debate Guide

Risk of proliferation

Union of Concerned Scientists report: "Advanced" Isn't Always Better, Edwin Lyman (2021).
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better
“We studied the most prominent “advanced” nuclear reactor designs. Unfortunately, few are safer or more secure than current generation reactors.”
From the Executive Summary:
“All MSRs chemically treat the fuel to varying extents while the reactor operates to remove radioactive isotopes that affect reactor performance. Therefore, unlike other reactors, MSRs generally require on-site chemical plants to process their fuel. MSRs also need elaborate systems to capture and treat large volumes of highly radioactive gaseous byproducts.”

From Jack Devanney, Principal Engineer, ThorCon USA Inc:
“For the record, ThorCon does no chemical processing online to remove fission products or anything else. Xenon and krypton bubble out in the header tank, are held in storage tanks until they have decayed to harmless levels, and then cooled, compressed and stored. There's nothing elaborate or complex about the process.”

Waste Management

Comment in a discussion of nuclear waste in the FaceBook group Renewable vs. Nuclear Debate
"What are they going to do with the radioactive gases and the corrosive, radioactive salt from thorium reactors? ...the engineers designing MSR's don't know yet exactly, what kind and what amounts of radioactive waste will be produced, while physicists like Harald Lesch for example warn about the storage of used, radioactive salts. And recycling of nuclear waste is a no-go in the US of A"

See the replies from Jack Devanney above, and from Roger Blomquist in the discussion linked above.

one of these has been built recently

Apparently, these are not a new idea, but are being reconsidered. See New Molten Salt Thorium Reactor First Time (in) Decades. I know next to nothing about this, but put the link here in case this might help flesh out this article. Eventually, this article could use a better introduction. Coming to it as an uninformed, undecided reader, the current intro is too sparse for me to get my bearings. Pat Palmer (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is just a starter with info I picked up from the ThorCon website. Hopefully we will get an expert to jump in and "flesh" it out. Molten salt reactors are some of the first ever built. See the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) back in the 1960's at Oak Ridge. For reasons controversial to this day, they decided to abandon a successful demo and go with PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors). ThorCon is a straightforward upscale of these early reactors. David MacQuigg (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A brief history of this kind of reactor would be nice in the opener. As a reader, I'd like to know if any of these exist already (when, where etc).Pat Palmer (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (CDT)

And, is this the one where reactor modules get decommissioned after 4 years of use, allowed to "cool down" in place, and then removed/replaced with a new modules? If so, I'd like to see that in the article. It may be over in the WP version...sorry to be confused. Rushing about here.Pat Palmer (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2022 (CDT)

This old version of the article on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThorCon_nuclear_reactor&oldid=850279880 includes some history and origin details near the top related to ORNL. In my view, this article would benefit from including more context and history about the origin of the ThorCon ideas, both here and at WP. I had wondered all along where this design "came from". This old version gives a rather succinct history of the design right at the top. Who began the design? Where has it been tested? Where WILL it be tested, and when? I have no idea if the information is accurate, but the level of detail seems right.Pat Palmer (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (CDT)