this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
188 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
120 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 6 days ago

Seems crazy it took so long.

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

Are these even the best technology anymore? Feel like I read something that didn't use molten salt that was even better.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The presidental candidate from a few years back, Andrew Yang, even championed thorium reactors in the US, and now here we are.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Andrew Yang also championed hiring a management consulting firm to identify areas of inefficiency in the federal workforce and cut 15–20% of current government workers, assigning KPIs and sunset clauses to all Congressional legislation, and assigning AI life coaches with Oprah's voice to people in need of marriage counseling.

So, a very mixed bag of ideas. Few of them had a serious implementation behind them. Yang loved to noodle, but failed to explain where the novel technologies and extra-constitutional authorities would come from.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cant find anything in there thats worse than today tho.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

We don't like it today, why would we have liked it then?

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

America going full sour grapes right now. "We weren't the first to develop this technology so obviously the technology sucks and is not viable."

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago

The funny part is that the US was the first to study this technology back in the day, but it was abandoned since thorium has no military application.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Cool, but I am more excited about the French maintaining a fusion reaction for over twenty minutes.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 6 days ago

They maintained it, but I think it was energy negative.

[–] Aux@feddit.uk -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maintaining fusion reaction is not news. The main issue right now is material science to make reactors last and be efficient at the same time. Because well known materials today either last but poison the reaction, or fade away quickly.

[–] electricyarn@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maintaining fusion reaction is a very recent news and it's solly to claim otherwise.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 8 points 6 days ago

yeah the amount of time has really been climbing fast an that to me is what is huge. Went from seconds to minutes and I think measuring in hours is not far away.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Not to worry anyone. I am sure the free market will do much better soon. Investors love to put money in risky projects and not wait for the government to tell them what to do after all /s

[–] EnderLaw@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I remember reading somewhere that the US started work on Thorium reactors in the 60s and 70s, but abandoned work for reasons. China picked up on that old work.

[–] Zeta@futurology.today 13 points 6 days ago

“Rabbits sometimes make mistakes or grow lazy. That’s when the tortoise seizes its chance,” Xu told the meeting, referring to the US abandoning its molten salt reactor research in the 1970s after initial experiments.

American scientists pioneered molten salt reactor technology – including building a small test reactor in the 1960s – but the project was shelved in favour of uranium-based systems.

“The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor,” Xu was quoted as saying. “We were that successor.”

From the article

[–] sentinel@lemmitor.com 11 points 6 days ago

The reasons being that the US empire wants to enrich weapons grade plutonium and that US and EU nuclear buildouts are threats.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The reactor is reportedly designed to sustainably generate 2 megawatts of thermal power.

Anyone know how the power density compares to a conventional uranium PWR? In other words, are these machines substantially smaller or larger than a PWR for the same output?

[–] richtellyard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The linked PDF (page 14) has a few diagrams that can help infer vessel size, and the Wikipedia page for TSMR-LF1 also includes a decent floor plan and links to satellite images. Looks like a typical research reactor footprint, which means it may scale to be similar to existing LWRs at higher power. https://esfr-smart.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/S53_1_Paul_Gauthe_Overview_MSR_Gauthe.pdf

For reference, a typical PWR may be ~3000 MWth.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Thanks for the info!

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I only really know about this danish company. but they usually claim to be able to build a thorium reactor in a standard sized shipping container.

I may remember wrong, but IIRC they can run on the spent fuel from conventional nuclear reactors, since there's still an incredible amount of energy left in it.

There is apparently also litterally no chance for a meltdown because it will simply shut down.

So even if we say they're only able to produce half the amount of power that a conventional nuclear plant can do with the same footprint. It'll still be easier to find the space for them, they'll be better waste-wise, and also be a lot safer.

[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A 2Mw diesel is too big for a regular truck. But not as big as a small house. My prior data center drew 4Mw. My current data center (AI-oriened) draws 30Mw.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

so it's an achievement if we consider it a prototype, rather than a large scale power plant?

[–] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago