Before anybody gets too excited, it's better to understand what exactly happened.
China ran an experimental reactor that achieved some conversion of thorium into uranium. More precisely, the conversion ratio was 0.1 [1]. This means that for each new fissile atom generated from thorium (i.e. uranium-233) 10 atoms have been burned from the original fissile inventory.
Now, conversion happens in every nuclear reactor. Some new fissile material (generally Pu-239) is generated out of "fertile material" (generally U-238). And, surprisingly, that conversion ratio is quite high: 0.6 for pressurized light water reactors and 0.8 for pressurized heavy water reactors [2].
What China has achieved therefore is well below what is business as usual in regular reactors. The only novelty is that the breeding used thorium, rather than uranium.
Is this useless? No, it is not. In principle increasing the conversion ratio from 0.1 to something higher than 1.0 should be doable. But then, going from 0.8 in heavy water reactors to more than 1.0 should be even easier. Why don't people do it already? Because the investment needed to do all the research is quite significant, and the profits that can be derived from that are quite uncertain and overall the risk adjusted return on investment is not justified. If you are a state, you can ignore that. If China continues the research in thorium breeding, and eventually an economically profitable thorium breeder reactor comes out of that, the entire world will benefit. But the best case scenario is that this would be three decades in the future.
The real killer feature isn’t "more thorium than uranium" (thorium is already 4× more abundant). The real win is that thorium MSRs can eat the existing mountain of "spent" fuel rods from regular reactors and turn what we currently call high-level waste into electricity while leaving waste that’s safe in a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands. That’s hundreds of thousands of tons of "waste" suddnely becoming centuries of clean fuel. That alone flips the economics on its head.
Also: passive safety (the thing just drains and freezes if anything goes wrong), no pressure vessel, tiny physical footprint, way less long-lived actinides, and U-233 is basically proliferation-proof because of the hard gamma from U-232.
Uranium feels cheap and plentiful right now exactly the way oil felt infinite in the 1950s. China is playing the long game, and this little 2 MW rig lighting up and breeding U-233 last month is the “Sputnik moment” for the thorium cycle.
So...Three decades? Maybe if the West keeps sitting on its hands. China says 10 MW by 2030 and 100 MW demo by 2035. I wouldn’t bet against them.
Fundamentally the problem is that Uranium is so damn energy dense and abundant enough that there's little need to set up these complicated recycling systems. If we start to run out of Uranium then this technology starts to look appealing, but in the modern day it just doesn't make economic sense.
> Uranium is so damn energy dense and abundant enough that there's little need to set up these complicated recycling systems
Uranium is abundant, but not homogenously so [1]. (China has some. But not a lot. And it's bound up expensively. And it's by their population centres.)
For the Americas, Europe, Australia, southern Africa and Eastern Mediterranean, burning uranium makes sense. For China, it trades the Strait of Malacca for dependence on Russia and Central Asia.
Uranium can be stockpiled for years in advance, relatively easily. Enough to tide over a small war while you're setting up domestic production. And China should have enough low-grade ores for that.
Uranium is better for Chinese energy security than oil. But this still leaves China at Moscow's mercy. That's not too differet, energywise, than the situation is now.
> Uranium is far, far energy denser than any fossil fuel, and thus much easier to stockpile
Sure. That doesn't remove stockpiles' inherent disadvantages: finiteness and vulnerability. Relying on uranium stockpiles would immediately put China at a known limit in a war of attrition that wouldn't constrain their adversaries.
A sufficiently large stockpile of uranium gives China time to simply pivot away from depending on imported Uranium (either by building new mines locally or building out solar or such). An equivalent stockpile of oil simply isn't feasible, if only because oil is usually used directly and not via a source-agnostic electrical grid.
There's not that much Uranium actually that's economically sensible to extract. The NEA says in their 2024 report on Uranium [1]:
> Considering both the low and high nuclear capacity scenarios to 2050 presented in this edition, and assuming their 2050 capacity is maintained for the rest of the century, the quantities of uranium required by the global fleet – based on the current once-through fuel cycle – would likely surpass the currently identified uranium resource base in the highest cost category before the 2110s.
Their "high" scenario assumes having a bit more than double of today's capacity by 2050; today we have about 4-5% supply from nuclear energy worldwide.
The reason TMSR is appealing is that U-233 is hard to use for weapons purposes because it produces a lot of gamma radiation, which makes it hard to work with. There is also the claim that TMSRs are much safer designs than is possible with Uranium. It's possible that if TMSRs were mass produced that we could see them installed in many countries where we don't want to see Uranium or Plutonium reactors for proliferation reasons.
Sorry, but there are quite a few things you are missing. Nuclear engineering is well, nuclear engineering. The first big difference is that you can use the Thorium in a liquid fueled reactor instead of a solid fueled one. This allows you to burn far more of the fuel. For example, 2-4% of a solid fuel rod would fission, while in a liquid fueled reactor you can get to 90+%. This is good economically for 2 reasons: 1) more energy per unit of fuel and 2) the waste lasts far less time.
There are also other advantages of a liquid fueled reactor. The big one is that it is far easier to run because it self regulates. When a liquid heats up it expands (slowing the reaction) and when it cools it contracts (speeding up the reaction). So its safer to run, makes less waste and gets 20+X more power per unit of fuel.
There is one final thing to know about this stuff. A nuclear reactor is several billion in infrastructure supporting reactors that cost 10s of millions using a fuel load that costs less than your car. The way we scale and handle nuclear reactors just makes no sense economically. Each NPP is custom and they are built so rarely that everything has to be custom made. When you start building stock reactor designs with consistent supply chains, the cost goes way down. And most of the cost is lawsuits, lobbyists and PR. For developed countries, using or not using nuclear power is a political choice. One that we have been making badly. When you realize that the only real choices for baseload are FF and nuclear, the real political situation makes sense. Once again, the cause is just the excuse, not the real issue.
> Nuclear engineering is well, nuclear engineering.
Not sure I get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you are a nuclear engineer and I am not? Because, frankly, the rest of your comment does not read as one written by a nuclear engineer.
There's also the choice to match our energy consumption dynamically to intermittent power sources (e.g. solar), reducing the baseload demand. This is entirely orthogonal to decisions about where the baseload generation should come from.
doesnt make a difference to the economics of a nuke plant. Fuel consumption is a tiny fraction of the cost of nuke power, its almost all fixed cost - amortized construction costs, operations, etc. You need to run it at as close to 100% always to have any chance at payback & economical $/kw. Thats why they arent getting built.
We really do. Nuclear waste is less toxic than plenty of trash we just bury. And calling it "waste" is a bit reductive, given it almost certainly becomes valuable to reprocess within another century or two.
Radioactive waste is decidedly nasty stuff, but the total volume of it is tiny. There are plenty of chemicals that are just as nasty that were simply buried in the ground in much larger quantities over the years with nary a peep from the population. Nuclear waste is a political problem not a technological one.
The crazy part is that people want to insist that the sites need to be absolutely safe even if they aren't maintained for 1,000 years, but by that point the radioactivity would be no more than the base ore anyway so demanding these extended timelines doesn't make anybody safer. They're just red tape.
My understanding is that reactors will use that plutonium just fine, so the energy you get from a fresh fuel rod is almost exclusively from uranium fission but, as time goes on, an increasingly large share is from plutonium fission.
In principle, using Thorium would give you the energy from Thorium fission, then Uranium fission, then plutonium fission, which is pretty cool. However, I suspect you might hit an issue here where such a low conversion rate would make the reactor go sub-critical.
I'm getting impression that China is trying to position itself as scientific powerhouse before its massive industrial production scheme stops working. Smart move.
The notable thing here is that it's a molten salt reactor design, where the fuel is dissolved in a molten salt (FLiBe). This allows online continuous processing of the fuel, unlike with solid fuel rods sealed inside a pressure vessel.
This unlocks a lot of options for the fuel cycle, including the use of thorium.
This work builds on a previous molten salt reactor experiment at Oak Ridge, decades ago. There's a whole lore about MSRs.
It breeds thorium to fissionable uranium from a starting fissionable uranium starter fuel. It doesn't directly use thorium for fuel.
What people need to understand about the cycle efficiency is that when you mine uranium, the fissionable part of uranium (U-235) is only 1% of that uranium, the rest is nonfissionable U-238.
Thorium is about twice as abundant as Uranium (all isotopes). The MSR uses Thorium to create U-233, a fissionable but not naturally occurring Uranium isotope.
So the "unlimited energy aspect" is that about 200-300x more breedable Thorium exists than fissionable U-235.
A MSR nation could also try to breed U-238 into plutonium, which would provide another 100x more breeding stock, although LFTR never talked about U-238 breeding. IIRC the plutonium may be difficult to handle because of gamma rays, but I don't recall exactly.
While I don't have confidence that even LFTR/MSR reactors can get economical enough to challenge gas peakers, it may be possible to make truly price-competitive MSR electricity with the right modular design. I wish the Chinese the best of luck, because if they do it will spur the rest of the world to adopt this about-as-clean-and-safe-as-it-gets nuclear design.
China has thorium, and while less than others [1], it’s better than they do with uranium [2].
> it may be possible to make truly price-competitive MSR electricity with the right modular design
Yes. But probably not in the near term with thorium. This isn’t designed to be cheaper. It’s designed to be more available to China than being dependent on Russian deposits.
Eh, U-235 is .7%, not 1%, but also U-238 can be bred into Plutonium. What makes Thorium interesting -besides its abundance- is that U-233 is very difficult to work with, so proliferation concerns are mitigated.
MSRs have some attractive features, but they also have significant drawbacks.
The most pressing is that fissionable material is spread throughout the fluid, so fission and decay of fission products is occurring right up to the edge of the fluid. The walls and pipes containing the molten salt, and anything dipped into the salt, are exposed to unmoderated neutrons. One can shield using (say) graphite, but then damage to that (and soaking up of radioactive materials) become issues.
The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge was near the end of its radiation exposure lifetime when the program ended.
Contrast this to light water reactors. These are designed so that no lifetime component sees unmoderated neutrons. There's a thick barrier of water between the fissioning fuel and the reactor vessel wall and the support structures for the fuel bundles. The bundles themselves are exposed, but they are replaced for refueling and are not lifetime components.
I think it has a key advantage for China specifically though which is it consumes significantly less water and they have a lot of water poor territory.
The oakridge experiment ended and not a lot of R&D has been done on salt reactors. It makes sense that China is still basically in research and testing phases for molten salts.
Oh dear god, no. Graphite is a very good moderator, it is in no way a shield. Those two properties are (sort of) opposites of each other. Lead makes the cheapest and best shield. Also, those parts that are exposed to neutron flux stay radioactive for about 10 years. So it shortens their lifetime in the reactor but the waste isn't a big issue.
> Oh dear god, no [...] Lead makes the cheapest and best shield.
Oh my, definitely no :-) Do not use lead for neutron shielding. You're thinking gamma radiation but then we're talking apples vs oranges then. You want atoms comparable in size to neutrons, so something with plenty of hydrogen. Think water or PET (plastic) when you don't want water to "leak" when transporting a source. For thermal neutrons maybe PET impregnated with boron. Now neutrons may generate gamma when captured by hydrogen, then you may want some lead for secondary effects like that but I am not sure how strong those are.
Lead is fine for shielding of sufficiently energetic neutrons, which can lose energy to lead by inelastic nuclear collisions. But below the threshold for that lead does very little.
Maybe as a special case then as a thin layer before following up with water or PET, or PET impregnated with boron. But would also need an extra layer following it for secondary gamma emission from neutron capture.
Lead is essentially useless as a shield for neutrons that are below the minimum excitation energy of a lead nucleus. Elastic neutron collisions with lead leave the neutron energy essentially unchanged.
I assume this is why an alloy of lead is used in practice. Still doesn't change the fact that graphite is a moderator not a shielding material. Also, structural materials in reactors are usually invisible to neutrons and a sandwich of materials is often used. Different layers do different things. Usually, one layer of shielding and one layer of a material that isn't impacted (much) by neutron flux for structural strength.
There is a rabbithole for almost all of these material choices, especially in nuclear. Not going down that rabbithole in a discussion targeted at folks who don't spend their lives working in nuclear doesn't make that person wrong. It makes them an effective communicator.
PS Lead is a very very common shielding material in nuclear.
A moderator is a neutron shielding material, since it removes energy from the neutrons. That's what moderation is all about. Water is a much better moderator, but graphite still performs the function.
To add to this, even with the shielding provided by water in light water reactors, the neutron exposure is _the_ limiting factor for the reactor vessel.
The metric to look for is called "DPA" (displacements per atom), the number of neutron collisions that a material can tolerate before losing enough structural integrity to fall below the acceptable limits. The best modern reactor steels are at 150-180 DPA.
And a lot of potentially cool reactors like TWR (travelling wave reactor) end up being logistically impossible because lifetime-limited components will be exposed to multiple hundreds of DPAs.
Many old LWR's have had their reactor vessels heat treated during a maintenance break to undo some of that neutron radiation damage and extend the life of the reactor.
Not sure whether it would be possible to do something similar to a liquid fueled reactor, including all the hot pipework. Maybe, but yet another cost. Notably some of the recent MSR projects propose replacing the entire reactor every now and then (Terrestrial or whatever they were called, not sure if they are still around).
Thorium 232 is the thorium in the cycle yes. And all kinds of nonsense is correct for the daughter products. But in general, to actually use do anything with thorium you need excess neutrons.
Even the daughter uranium 233 only produces on average 2.48 neutrons per fission, so it’s very difficult even in a combined lifecycle process to have enough - thorium doesn’t produce uranium 233 immediately (takes almost 30 days), neutron capture with that low a ratio requires a LOT of thorium, which is going to mostly just suck up all neutrons and you won’t have any extra for addition uranium 233 fissions, etc.
It’s quite difficult (impossible?)to have actually work without a source of a large amount of additional neutrons.
> to actually use do anything with thorium you need excess neutrons
Unless 100% of those neutrons is being absorbed by the thorium, this means you'll have neutron flux at the boundary. Which, for a liquid moderator, means all the pipes and tanks and pumps.
Sure, if you ignore all the parts of the neutron economy that make it possible to work. The part everyone missed in this discussion is that all of the numbers of neutrons (and their barns) aren't constants. Since the fuel is a fluid, you can use density and shape to improve the neutron economy in the reactor core. Basically, when the atoms are closer together, the economy improves. You can also use a better moderator like graphite since the basic design is safer and the rate of fission is just easier to control.
And considering that people made these things work 60 years ago without modern computers, the idea that its impossible or needs 40 years of research seems pretty far fetched. What is left of the nuclear industry wants to build current designs like the AP1400. That is a great idea, but there are things you can do with a LFTR that you can't do with an AP1400. The biggest of them is making synthetic fuel. The other advantages are the amount of waste produced and the fact that you can make a LFTR into a waste burner consuming the spent fuel rods from a AP1400. The downside is you actually have to fix nuclear regulations to do this and getting politicians to do that has proved impossible.
There are no technological barriers, this is entirely political.
> That you’re even discussing graphite moderated (?!!) makes this pretty clear.
And why would this be? Is graphite expensive? No it isn't. Also, we created a working one of these designed in the 1960's without computers. You seriously think this is hard compared to other types of engineering we do today?
A LFTR can also do things that a PWR or BWR can't and has several major advantages. But since it uses pencil lead apparently we can't even try it.
Because it has dangerous behavior in real reactors due to the void co-efficient behavior, to the point of… being the cause of the largest nuclear disaster in recorded history?
Not OP but he maybe referring to the new gas cooled gen 4 reactors not Soviet RBMKs. The ones I heard are working with sealed beads of uranium, encased in porous carbon, then some other layers, including some carbide (silicon?). The porosity of carbon absorbs gases but they ultimately stay sealed. The whole thing is helium cooled.
> Now, the research team is conducting systematic studies on the key scientific issues related to adding thorium, and aims to completethe construction of a 100-megawatt TMSR demonstration project, and begin operation by 2035.
For comparison: A commercial nuclear power plant is 1 gigawatt, a 10x difference. I assume this would be the next step.
The typical 1 gigawatt rating for a nuclear power reactor is measuring electrical output. Given the various inefficiencies, the actual reactor output (as heat) is something like 3x that amount. Whereas a research reactor will be quoted as thermal output.
That to say, a typical commercial reactor might be 30x the power of a 100 MW research device.
Thorium MSRs don't make sense for the Americas, Europe or Australia. We have plenty of uranium.
Nuclear is receiving solid research backing in both America and China. (India is playing too. Austrlia is having an identity crisis.) Our different geologies mean there will probably be one solution for China, India and North Africa, on one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other hand.
I don't think Australia is having an identity crisis. There won't be research backing from Australia as the Nuclear agenda one party is pushing is essentially a cover story for replacing antique coal plants with gas plants. A genuine Nuclear plan for Australia would include realistic timelines and budgets, and use of other renewables to replace coal plants that are failing today while meeting climate targets. And meeting climate targets is important, because if we don't care about them then coal and gas will remain cheaper than Nuclear for Australia due to having large reserves.
The cost of the fuel is less than 0.1% of the cost of running a NPP. The cost of the fuel has almost nothing to do with the economics of nuclear power. And considering a liquid fueled reactor makes heat in the 900C range and a AP1400 makes heat in the 300C range, they aren't really substitutes for each other. The amount of incorrect information in this thread is truly shocking. For example, you can make synthetic fuel from a LFTR, you can't from a BWR or a PWR. That might be a valuable feature, don't you think.
> cost of the fuel has almost nothing to do with the economics of nuclear power
Who said this?
> considering a liquid fueled reactor makes heat in the 900C range and a AP1400 makes heat in the 300C range, they aren't really substitutes for each other
Nobody said this either.
There are more reactor designs in the world than LFTR, PWR and BWR, particularly if we're talking at the demonstration scale like this reactor.
Came online ~10 years ago. One could quibble about design and construction timelines; the reactor is still half-experimental, and the Russians are conducting that breeder program very slowly. But it's not a 1980s design frozen in time.
This is US tech that China is copying. We could have done this at anytime in the last 60 years. The blocker isn't technology, its scientifically uninformed politics.
Breeding is a technology looking for a business case.
It's more expensive than just using fresh uranium in current market conditions. It's a way from keeping future uranium shortages from making nuclear power more expensive; it's not a way to make nuclear cheaper than it currently is.
It also apparently provides a way to make reactors that don’t depend as much on water so they don’t all have to be near the coast.
This would allow Western China to also develop reactors to help underpin their renewable and coal energy.
> The interest in MSR technology and Thorium breeding did not disappear however. China's nuclear power production relies heavily on imported uranium,[10] a strategic vulnerability in the event of i.e. economic sanctions. Additionally, the relative lack of water available for cooling PWRs west of the Hu line is a limiting factor for siting them there.
> also apparently provides a way to make reactors that don’t depend as much on water so they don’t all have to be near the coast
Non-water microreactors broadly fall into two categories: ones using a different moderator, most commonly sodium, a sodium salt or helium; and those using heat pipes. Most microreactor designs don’t use water.
The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive at the present and would the price of uranium rise enough that breeders would become economically viable most countries would just stop bothering with nuclear power altogether.
The cost of nuclear power is almost entirely capex and financing, not opex. Uranium input cost for nuclear power plants is 0.5c/kWh. With breeders you can divide that by about 100.
At least as of a couple years ago nuclear costs just a little more than solar plus storage and that’s not stopping anyone heh.
Capex and financing is still an issue for many countries, and the opex is a non-zero commitment beyond just the fiscal portion. Most countries that pass-over nuclear energy are fairly justified in their decision. The status-quo is still not super psyched about nuclear proliferation.
There is room to change that, but the cards are very heavily stacked in China's favor. America's bad at the financing part, fickle when it comes to enforcement & supply chains, and ostensibly 2 days away from bailing on the IAEA itself. The proliferation-resistance of Thorium reactors gives China an export trump card that America will struggle to match.
> The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive
Let me fix that for you: "The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive in the bureaucratic high cost litigious Anglo-sphere". And that's pretty much all infrastructure these days, unfortunately.
They’re not financially attractive in other parts of the world either. China, a zero litigation single party state, is building some but a tiny % compared to their renewable buildout
"China currently has 58 operable reactors with a total capacity of 56.9 GW. A further 30 reactors, with a total capacity of 34.4 GW are under construction" [1]
So, yes, but...
China installed 256GW of solar in the first 6 months of 2025 [2]. A full year estimate of ~350gw. So, the total of all nuclear under construction is 1/10th of the solar they installed in one year.
Don't get me wrong, its cool to see diversity of non fossil sources, glad they are building some, but its a niche in their overall energy buildout. And they can only build that small niche because they dont have to be market priced, its state subsidized.
Comparing nuclear reactor capacity to solar capacity is misleading because renewable capacity dramatically overstates actual generation. IIRC The capacity factor for solar ranges between %5-%25 of total capacity generated.
That doesn't significantly change the argument. Most solar plants have capacity factors of around 20% (5% might apply to home systems, but not commerical), compared to nuclear which has around 80%. So a factor of 4. So numbers change a bit on the previous poster, China just installed 3x more solar in 1 year than all the nuclear under construction, or they essentially installed the same amout of solar in one year as all existing and under construction nuclear combined. And if we look at projections, next year they likely will install twice as much solar...
While China is often put up as the poster child for nuclear power, they are actually a great example of how nuclear is being overtaken by renewables. China's 2019 plan was that by 2035 nuclear would account for ~8% of generated electricity (up from ~5%). Since then percentage dropped to 4.5% (and the drop seems to be accelerating). Unless something dramatically changes nuclear will account for less than 4% (not the planned 8%) of generated electricity by 2035. All that is due to the raise of renewables (largely solar). I suspect we will not see China build close to those projected 200 GW and the percentage to be even lower, just due to the exponential growth in solar.
Yes yes, one of the usual reflexive context free points repeated every time solar comes up. Whatever the actual capacity factor is(5% is not a serious number ), I’m sure chinas energy planners know that, it’s hardly a gotcha. And still they’ve choose to build solar at a volume massively dwarfing nuclear
(Edit: cycomanic explained it much better and more patiently than me)
It's not the litigiousness that makes it expensive. France was producing nuclear power plants at a cost per watt that nearly matches modern China. In fact, the mind-numbing cost overruns seem unique to the US.
france cant do it any more either. Flamanville was 12 years late and [1] 400% over budget. EPR2 is already delayed and over budget and they havent even started building yet!
That might be somewhat true but Flamanville was still about $4/watt while Vogtle 3 and 4 (which were built around the same time) were about $15/watt. It's still hard to place France and the US in the same bucket. The US really is uniquely inept at nuclear costs
The UK does the same thing. In fact, its across the entire west. Its almost as if absurd over-regulation is expensive. The Vogtle plant construction for example had to deal with 3 different tranches of changes to the design caused by regulators. Its not corruption, its over-regulation. If it is corruption, it is corrupt politicians intentionally over-regulating because their backers make lots of money extracting FFs.
They highlight less the advantages from breeding, than other advantages of the molten salt design, like not needing a lot of cooling water, which allows this reactor to operate in the Gobi desert, the possibility of replacing the fuel without halting the reactor and various safety features.
Nuclear reactors don't need a particularly big amount of cooling water.
The thermodynamic cycle needs a cold source though, and it's most commonly water. This doesn't depend on the reactor design and this is equally as true of coal plants.
As long as you are making electricity out of a thermodynamic cycle, you need a heat source (be it a flame or a nuclear reaction) and a cold source.
There is no business case for basic research, but if you stop basic research long enough you will have no business. The United States and its allies seem to have completely forgotten this.
It makes sense for big monopolies like Bell, or the CCP. The investment can be justified if the ones investing are confident they will be able to capture the value and not some competitor.
Bell Labs also served to maintain positive perceptions of the monopoly. Unix was famously developed despite the knowledge that AT&T would not be able to offer it as an independent product.
This isn't basic research. The US has had this tech for half a century. There's just no reason to do it. Uranium is plentiful and cheap and arguably safer.
The fuel cost of a NPP has almost no impact on the NPP's operational expenses and a LFTR (like all liquid fuel designs) is a far safer design. Nobody in the energy industry has talked about the fuel cost in nuclear in 50 years. It isn't even a consideration when comparing designs. Waste volume, safety, politics, and construction labor costs are the factors which are considered (also temp of the heat maybe).
Reducing the energy sector to pure business would probably work in the 1990s, but not now, when countries are afraid of strategic dependence on potentially hostile suppliers.
Uranium isn't as ubiquitous as, say, natural gas, and stockpiling it comes with a big heap of physical problems. I can definitely see countries spending on more expensive technology if it comes with more energy security.
China has engaged in industrial espionage on an unprecedented scale. To the extent there is delusion, it's in American spies being slow to returning the favour.
I mean we're already doing that in many avenues. Solar being the most obvious. The only functioning solar manufacturing plants in the US are Chinese-owned and are only here to take advantage of subsidies.
Plenty has been learned by the US/West from copying their approach to agriculture, robotics in factories, mining, drones, etc. Have you seen their electromagnetic catapult technology?? That stuff seems like its from the space-age! There's even plenty of tech that we can't really explain like the all-moving wingtips on the new J-50s. (and yes, I'm avoiding talking about their supersonic cruise missiles)
also to remember that thorium is the dominant radioactive byproduct of "rare" earth metal refinement; so they're probably isolating large amounts of it so might as well figure out something to do with it.
Interesting claim that the reactor doesn't need water and can be built away from the coast. I thought all reactors used steam to turn a turbine to produce electricity. Something special here?
This type of reactor would probably use super-critical CO2 instead of water to transfer the heat from the reactor to the turbines, so no water. The design is safer that way.
The way water might be used in this design is to make a synthetic fuel instead of electricity. In that case, you are swapping out the turbines for a process that extracts CO2 from seawater, uses electrolysis to crack the water and then a FT process to make a (renewable) hydrocarbon fuel (you might even use some feedstock to make it more efficient).
It had uranium-233 from breeding from thorium in other reactors.
The main problem with these things is they seem very unprofitable. The US reactor ran from 1964 to 1969 and produced a small amount of power but is still running about $10m a year in decommissioning costs. You thing you can run these things a while and think it's over but:
>Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas: the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging"...
No country has seriously invested in the thorium fuel cycle because it cannot be used to create weapons. Unfortunately, the technology also began to look most promising as an energy source around the same time the Three Mile Island nuclear accident effectively ended all interest in nuclear energy in the United States.
India has shown some of the most interest to date, due to their lack of domestic uranium reserves. But it's been slow going their fast breeder reactor plans were delayed by like two decades. But it is built and it was loaded with fuel last month [0]
The French interest in breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing also originates from a similar concern about lack of domestic access to raw uranium. Though Super-phoenix [0] was a more traditional uranium -> plutonium approach and not thorium. They gave up because just using uranium is way, way cheaper than synthesizing your own fissile materials.
Theoretically, perhaps, but I don’t think anyone with a serious interest in weapons would pursue it. From a nonproliferation perspective, I’d guess the infrastructure necessary to remove contaminants from uranium bred through the thorium cycle would be costly and difficult to conceal.
Multiple countries have detonated nuclear bombs using U-233 derived from thorium reactors! [0] Practically I agree with you that thorium is proliferation resistant and if someone is bomb hungry they won't prioritize it, but if you want to set up the bomb and all you have is thorium... The infrastructure wouldn't necessarily be significantly larger or worse than conventional enrichment.
Technically true and practically false. Only once has anyone done that. The bomb was considered a dud and the research was ultimately destroyed. So while you could, it would require completely reinventing all the original research that went into making the original one. Lookup operation teapot for more details.
Depends on what you want out of your reactor. You want to make a synthetic fuel, Thorium not Uranium. You want a liquid fueled reactor (because its safer and proliferation resistant), Thorium not Uranium. You want 900C heat instead of 300C heat, Thorium not Uranium.
The fuel costs of a NPP are a tiny rounding error. If you want electricity and want to build it today, Uranium not Thorium. You are using arguments from 50 years ago when many incorrect assumptions about cost structure and fuel availability were used to make decisions.
The cope is strong here. The only liquid fueled reactors with any operational experience got shut down because of corrosion issues causing major leaks.
The pros you mention are theoretical - because the cons came out in force when actually tried, and they’ve been tried many times by many different countries.
Gates invested in the traveling wave reactor which was a bust. Then he sold his entire investment in nuclear several years ago. He's very rich so perhaps he has other nuclear investments that I'm not aware of but none are in the MSTR space unless they are secret/private.
To be fair, these advances are not being made in China due to "free industry". They have something of a command economy for their critical sectors. So it's unfair not to point out that it's easy to make advances if a nation as a whole points to a hill and says, "take that hill". Of course you can do it under those circumstances.
If it's just your company or some trifling consortium trying to develop nuclear energy advances in a "free industry" environment, the guy who is just slapping up windmills, [T Boone Pickens RIP], is just gonna mop the floor with you. There's just no way to compete on moonshots like that.
This type of progress shows China is capable of moving from an economy that’s build on labor arbitrage or copying others to genuine innovation. It’s also further evidence of the extreme competence of the CCP in governance, which I feel should be acknowledged despite their authoritarian negatives.
> This type of progress shows China is capable of moving from an economy that’s build on labor arbitrage or copying others to genuine innovation
China has been genuinely innovating in manufacturing techniques for decades. If anything, that ingenunuity peaked when Xi began his term, and has been degrading as his dictatorial tendencies needlessly hamstrung Chinese industry.
I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate from one particular technical field to governance in general.
The US managed to defeat both Nazi Germany and Japan plus develop nuclear weapons, all in 1941-5. Was it a proof of extreme competence of the US government in general? The some government tolerated abuse of blacks and forced segregation in the South, I would call it a serious governance failure.
Thorium is abundant anywhere where Rare Earths are mined. You can get it almost anywhere. You don't even mine it, you process it out of tailing piles from other mining operations.
Meanwhile Germany just decommissioned its last nuclear reactors. Given the challenges of baseload renewable generation, it's frustrating to watch working infrastructure being dismantled while we're still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
> Comparing those old conventional reactors to MSR is not suitable at all
It is given we're talking about perceptions. I see no evidence Germany's Greens are suddently rational when it comes to modern reactor designs, of which MSRs are one.
To be fair, a lot of nuclear reactors around the world should be shut down just due to age and outdated designs. However they should also be being replaced with modern reactors, which few people have, which makes shutting them down while we are still largely utilizing fossil fuel power and chemical plants really dumb.
The baseload talking point has never made sense but storage doesn't make it make less sense. Baseload here is definitionally power sources that can't economically follow the demand curve. They carry the exact same problem that intermittent power sources like solar do, in that you need dispatchable power sources to augment them so that they can actually meet demand, the only difference is that the cause of this is that generation stays constant while load varies instead of both generation and load varying.
Baseload is not, and has never been, a feature. It's just a drawback that can be handled so long as only some of your power comes from such sources.
Batteries augment base load power sources the exact same way they augment intermittent ones, they take power from them when there is excess and give power back when there isn't making them effectively dispatachable power.
Um, yes it has. When you use solar or wind for baseload, it must be backed up by a spinning reserve. When you calculate the combined CO2 output of both the renewables and the spinning reserve, you learn it is more than just using gas by itself (and often it is more than just using oil or coal). There has never been a renewable power source used for baseload that has reduced CO2 emissions per watt. The math and laws of physics basically prevents it from happening. You want that to change, learn how to purify poly-silica more efficiently. And nobody (and I mean nobody) is even working on that. You don't pay for power, you pay for power you control with a switch. Power you don't control is called an explosion.
Germany has the most expensive and dirtiest grid in the developed world. They get the majority of their baseload power from other countries, often generated by nuclear or gas. Also, that you think they have 500 GW of anything that generates power is pretty funny. The only thing your comment says is that you don't understand anything about how power is generated or how an electrical grid works. People like you are why we still use so much FFs. You can't solve AGW with accounting tricks.
PS Maybe ask Spain how that renewable baseload generated power is doing for them.
Germany sourced 57% of all power from renewables in the first 9mo of 2025 [1]. They seem to be doing just fine, might be time to update your talking points
By all the doomerism about German and nuclear there is at least Wendelstein 7-x doing frontier work. It's fine to get rid of legacy nuclear if there is a feasible bridge ahead.
Not sure what the point of this comment is. China has its equivalent EAST, France has ITER. Countries can do both fission and fusion research. To me the problem isn't that Germany closed some legacy reactors, but that too little is done into looking into alternative designs.
China is far better at long term societal planning. Ultimately, I expect they will be the ones who can solve the climate crisis, after being one of the biggest contributors to the problem.
Sure, but most of that is from industrial production, and really should be debited on importing nations’ CO2 accounts. Whereas in the US transportation, heating and construction are the main consumers.
We have basically limitless carbon free energy with the tech we have now: solar, wind, batteries, fission breeders, large power grids that can move power around cheaply, etc. Put all those together and we have incredible energy abundance.
We also have the ability to electrify most transport except maybe long haul trucking and long haul aviation. Aviation (ALL aviation) accounts for less than 5% of global CO2 emissions, which means we could leave that alone and cut elsewhere until we have batteries and other infrastructure good enough for that.
Build all this out and it'll be cheaper and more scalable than what we currently have.
We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it. Meanwhile China is eating our lunch. Make America Great Again! By... pretending it's 1945 and trying to LARP the previous century.
Classic innovators' dilemma at the national level.
I'd love to see as much electrification as possible.
On the aviation note, sadly, aviation bats higher than its C02 accounting. Contrails add another 1-2% on top of contribution from it's C02 emissions. It's entirely avoidable and could be resolved at relatively low cost.
If that’s the case it makes aviation like 6-7%, still low. Coal fired electricity generation is king when it comes to climate change, followed by oil fueled land transport and natural gas. Deforestation is higher too. Aviation is part of the long tail.
Nope, you can't make synthetic fuel at anywhere near a competitive price from electricity. To make a synthetic fuel, the major energy input is heat (yes I know, you use electrolysis to crack the water, its a minor part of the energy required). The only way to make a cheap synthetic fuel is from a nuclear reactor that produces heat in the 900C range (could be 700C or 1100C, but near there). You can't do that with solid fuel reactors, you need a liquid fueled reactor for that. And you need Thorium for a liquid fueled reactor. That's why this design is so popular.
> We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it.
Yes, and also vast oil and gas reserves China doesn't have.
Also there is strong public fear and dislike of nuclear power.
In countries where there are no or little fossil fuels it is mainly this public opinion which has crippled the nuclear industry. Germany is a prime example.
Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.
> Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.
That really isn’t true. The reason Shanghai didn’t expand their maglev to Hangzhou is because residents were worried about electrical magnetic radiation, which I don’t think is really a thing. Nuclear took a long time to get started in China because people thought the government to be inept and corrupt, an image that has only recently faded away in the last decade. Without free elections, public opinion is actually much more important if you want to avoid economically destructive riots.
But this all happens in back rooms, the legal system isn’t very relevant, so if you have an issue but it isn’t a very popular one, you don’t really have any recourse. For example, niche environmental issues, or ones that aren’t widely recognized yet as dangerous…
FF extraction is very profitable and has been for a long time. Those that make money from extraction spend a lot on lobbying. They don't want nuclear power because its the only thing that can really replace FFs. The public opinion angle is just useful idiots being manipulated by people who make money from FF extraction. That makes it far easier to get the politicians to do what they want (kill nuclear).
China has distracted the USA energy focus by dumping cheap solar panels here while continuing to develop advanced nuclear generation capabilities at home.
China is simply betting on all horses: solar, wind, thorium, batteries, coal even, anything to not buy foreign oil and be as independent, self-sufficient as possible.
Seems like it's working too
Exactly. That's less noticed by many people. Just give you two examples:
1.While China scaled up the EV production, the development of Hydrogen based technology is still going on. There are some progress but lost in the bigger noise of EV.
2.China became the largest automobile exporter, leading by EV. But most people thought that's because EV took over ICE. That's partially true because EV dominate the export. What the most people missing is a quite portion of export are ICE cars. Because the ICE engine from China achieved higher energy transformation efficiency than Japanese and German cars. Again the information was lost in the EV noise.
Yup.. Happens to align somewhat with climate goals too, luckily for the rest of us. Once solar+batteries becomes the cheapest form of generation, the coal usage should also drop, if that isn't already the case
> Once solar+batteries becomes the cheapest form of generation, the coal usage should also drop
Marginal versus bulk. It can make sense, economically, to keep building coal plants even if solar is cheaper if you’re building solar as fast as you can and still need more power.
> I don't see the U.S rushing to adopt either renewables or nuclear. We're just increasing our fossil fuel burning (natural gas)
This is wrong. Natural gas is falling from 42% of U.S. electricity generation in '23 and '24 to 40% in '25E and '26E [1]. Renewables, meanwhile, keep marching from 23% ('24) to 24% ('25E) and 26% ('26E). (Nuclear falls from 19% ('24) to 18% ('25E and '26E).
That's capacity, not generation. Getting through the accounting tricks that make renewables seem viable is a challenge. 1 watt of nuclear capacity is worth 1.5 watts of FF and 9 watts of renewables. That's because the amount of power from each type of plant is very different due to downtimes of generation. Nuclear runs all the time and refuels for a couple of days every 18 months (depending on the reactor). FF plants run most of the time by require 10x more maintenance downtime. Renewables only make power about 10% of the time. That's how they skew the numbers to make renewables seem viable when they produce a shockingly low amount of actual power. Oh, and if you use renewables for baseload you have to keep a spinning reserve which means they actually increase (not decrease) the amount of CO2 emitted per watt generated.
Irrelevant. The question is what we're investing in. "The U.S" is "rushing to adopt...renewables."
> FF plants run most of the time
"CCGT capacity factor rose from 40% in 2008 to 57% in 2022" [1]. "In the western United States," meanwhile "the capacity value of PV plants can be in the range of 50% to 80%" [2].
> That's how they skew the numbers to make renewables seem viable when they produce a shockingly low amount of actual power
You should tell the folks overwhelming choosing to build and finance renewable power plants! They clearly missed this key point, they’ll surely be grateful you let them know that their renewable investments don’t make sense, and they should have picked nuclear due to it being cheaper overall
Every other day its "China creates a breakthrough that was never thought possible" and "America shits in hand; Claps."
Before anybody gets too excited, it's better to understand what exactly happened.
China ran an experimental reactor that achieved some conversion of thorium into uranium. More precisely, the conversion ratio was 0.1 [1]. This means that for each new fissile atom generated from thorium (i.e. uranium-233) 10 atoms have been burned from the original fissile inventory.
Now, conversion happens in every nuclear reactor. Some new fissile material (generally Pu-239) is generated out of "fertile material" (generally U-238). And, surprisingly, that conversion ratio is quite high: 0.6 for pressurized light water reactors and 0.8 for pressurized heavy water reactors [2].
What China has achieved therefore is well below what is business as usual in regular reactors. The only novelty is that the breeding used thorium, rather than uranium.
Is this useless? No, it is not. In principle increasing the conversion ratio from 0.1 to something higher than 1.0 should be doable. But then, going from 0.8 in heavy water reactors to more than 1.0 should be even easier. Why don't people do it already? Because the investment needed to do all the research is quite significant, and the profits that can be derived from that are quite uncertain and overall the risk adjusted return on investment is not justified. If you are a state, you can ignore that. If China continues the research in thorium breeding, and eventually an economically profitable thorium breeder reactor comes out of that, the entire world will benefit. But the best case scenario is that this would be three decades in the future.
[1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinese-msr-achi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Conversion_rat...
The real killer feature isn’t "more thorium than uranium" (thorium is already 4× more abundant). The real win is that thorium MSRs can eat the existing mountain of "spent" fuel rods from regular reactors and turn what we currently call high-level waste into electricity while leaving waste that’s safe in a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands. That’s hundreds of thousands of tons of "waste" suddnely becoming centuries of clean fuel. That alone flips the economics on its head.
Also: passive safety (the thing just drains and freezes if anything goes wrong), no pressure vessel, tiny physical footprint, way less long-lived actinides, and U-233 is basically proliferation-proof because of the hard gamma from U-232. Uranium feels cheap and plentiful right now exactly the way oil felt infinite in the 1950s. China is playing the long game, and this little 2 MW rig lighting up and breeding U-233 last month is the “Sputnik moment” for the thorium cycle.
So...Three decades? Maybe if the West keeps sitting on its hands. China says 10 MW by 2030 and 100 MW demo by 2035. I wouldn’t bet against them.
So yeah, exciting as hell actually.
Fundamentally the problem is that Uranium is so damn energy dense and abundant enough that there's little need to set up these complicated recycling systems. If we start to run out of Uranium then this technology starts to look appealing, but in the modern day it just doesn't make economic sense.
> Uranium is so damn energy dense and abundant enough that there's little need to set up these complicated recycling systems
Uranium is abundant, but not homogenously so [1]. (China has some. But not a lot. And it's bound up expensively. And it's by their population centres.)
For the Americas, Europe, Australia, southern Africa and Eastern Mediterranean, burning uranium makes sense. For China, it trades the Strait of Malacca for dependence on Russia and Central Asia.
[1] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1800.pdf
Uranium can be stockpiled for years in advance, relatively easily. Enough to tide over a small war while you're setting up domestic production. And China should have enough low-grade ores for that.
Also, they can bring it in by rail from Russia. So they can avoid the seaward path.
China imports substantially all of its uranium from Kazakhstan and Namibia, and a tiny bit from US. Russia is insignificant.
https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/CHN/yea...
> they can bring it in by rail from Russia
Uranium is better for Chinese energy security than oil. But this still leaves China at Moscow's mercy. That's not too differet, energywise, than the situation is now.
> Uranium can be stockpiled for years in advance, relatively easily
So can oil. Energy security is an important priority for a global power.
Stockpiles are good. Own supply chains are better.
Uranium is far, far energy denser than any fossil fuel, and thus much easier to stockpile.
> Uranium is far, far energy denser than any fossil fuel, and thus much easier to stockpile
Sure. That doesn't remove stockpiles' inherent disadvantages: finiteness and vulnerability. Relying on uranium stockpiles would immediately put China at a known limit in a war of attrition that wouldn't constrain their adversaries.
A sufficiently large stockpile of uranium gives China time to simply pivot away from depending on imported Uranium (either by building new mines locally or building out solar or such). An equivalent stockpile of oil simply isn't feasible, if only because oil is usually used directly and not via a source-agnostic electrical grid.
Well no, no country on earth has 5 years worth of oil stockpile, logistically it's impossible.
Nothing can compete with the energy density of uranium.
There's not that much Uranium actually that's economically sensible to extract. The NEA says in their 2024 report on Uranium [1]:
> Considering both the low and high nuclear capacity scenarios to 2050 presented in this edition, and assuming their 2050 capacity is maintained for the rest of the century, the quantities of uranium required by the global fleet – based on the current once-through fuel cycle – would likely surpass the currently identified uranium resource base in the highest cost category before the 2110s.
Their "high" scenario assumes having a bit more than double of today's capacity by 2050; today we have about 4-5% supply from nuclear energy worldwide.
[1] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_103179/uranium-2024-resourc...
Out of curioosity, do they forecast at what point it becomes cheaper to breed than mine?
There are tons of mines which were shut down a long time ago, but could be reopened if there was much of a uranium market again.
The actual efficiency of breeding thorium is so low, it would take a HUGE scarcity to actual make any sense.
The reason TMSR is appealing is that U-233 is hard to use for weapons purposes because it produces a lot of gamma radiation, which makes it hard to work with. There is also the claim that TMSRs are much safer designs than is possible with Uranium. It's possible that if TMSRs were mass produced that we could see them installed in many countries where we don't want to see Uranium or Plutonium reactors for proliferation reasons.
Sorry, but there are quite a few things you are missing. Nuclear engineering is well, nuclear engineering. The first big difference is that you can use the Thorium in a liquid fueled reactor instead of a solid fueled one. This allows you to burn far more of the fuel. For example, 2-4% of a solid fuel rod would fission, while in a liquid fueled reactor you can get to 90+%. This is good economically for 2 reasons: 1) more energy per unit of fuel and 2) the waste lasts far less time.
There are also other advantages of a liquid fueled reactor. The big one is that it is far easier to run because it self regulates. When a liquid heats up it expands (slowing the reaction) and when it cools it contracts (speeding up the reaction). So its safer to run, makes less waste and gets 20+X more power per unit of fuel.
There is one final thing to know about this stuff. A nuclear reactor is several billion in infrastructure supporting reactors that cost 10s of millions using a fuel load that costs less than your car. The way we scale and handle nuclear reactors just makes no sense economically. Each NPP is custom and they are built so rarely that everything has to be custom made. When you start building stock reactor designs with consistent supply chains, the cost goes way down. And most of the cost is lawsuits, lobbyists and PR. For developed countries, using or not using nuclear power is a political choice. One that we have been making badly. When you realize that the only real choices for baseload are FF and nuclear, the real political situation makes sense. Once again, the cause is just the excuse, not the real issue.
> Nuclear engineering is well, nuclear engineering.
Not sure I get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you are a nuclear engineer and I am not? Because, frankly, the rest of your comment does not read as one written by a nuclear engineer.
There's also the choice to match our energy consumption dynamically to intermittent power sources (e.g. solar), reducing the baseload demand. This is entirely orthogonal to decisions about where the baseload generation should come from.
That's called load following. That's also a thing a liquid fueled reactor can do that a solid fueled reactor can't.
You need to go tell the French that what they've been doing for decades isn't possible, then.
doesnt make a difference to the economics of a nuke plant. Fuel consumption is a tiny fraction of the cost of nuke power, its almost all fixed cost - amortized construction costs, operations, etc. You need to run it at as close to 100% always to have any chance at payback & economical $/kw. Thats why they arent getting built.
No, it's the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_side_management. Load-following is a good property for a power plant to have, though, especially if the plant is suitable for baseload generation.
and we still don't know where to store the trash. Thorium seems better (but my knowledge is close to zero here, I must admit:-) )
> we still don't know where to store the trash
We really do. Nuclear waste is less toxic than plenty of trash we just bury. And calling it "waste" is a bit reductive, given it almost certainly becomes valuable to reprocess within another century or two.
No, you really do not.
Long term storage is still up in the air in the US. Yucca mountain was the plan but didn't happen
Correct me if I'm with m wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
Radioactive waste is decidedly nasty stuff, but the total volume of it is tiny. There are plenty of chemicals that are just as nasty that were simply buried in the ground in much larger quantities over the years with nary a peep from the population. Nuclear waste is a political problem not a technological one.
The crazy part is that people want to insist that the sites need to be absolutely safe even if they aren't maintained for 1,000 years, but by that point the radioactivity would be no more than the base ore anyway so demanding these extended timelines doesn't make anybody safer. They're just red tape.
That's a political problem, not a technical one.
We also know that we could re-cycle nuclear waste with other nuclear plant designs, but the US chooses not to.
Russians recycle it
My understanding is that reactors will use that plutonium just fine, so the energy you get from a fresh fuel rod is almost exclusively from uranium fission but, as time goes on, an increasingly large share is from plutonium fission.
In principle, using Thorium would give you the energy from Thorium fission, then Uranium fission, then plutonium fission, which is pretty cool. However, I suspect you might hit an issue here where such a low conversion rate would make the reactor go sub-critical.
I'm getting impression that China is trying to position itself as scientific powerhouse before its massive industrial production scheme stops working. Smart move.
[flagged]
The notable thing here is that it's a molten salt reactor design, where the fuel is dissolved in a molten salt (FLiBe). This allows online continuous processing of the fuel, unlike with solid fuel rods sealed inside a pressure vessel.
This unlocks a lot of options for the fuel cycle, including the use of thorium.
This work builds on a previous molten salt reactor experiment at Oak Ridge, decades ago. There's a whole lore about MSRs.
> notable thing here is that it's a molten salt reactor design
Notable, but not unique. The unique bit is it burns thorium.
It breeds thorium to fissionable uranium from a starting fissionable uranium starter fuel. It doesn't directly use thorium for fuel.
What people need to understand about the cycle efficiency is that when you mine uranium, the fissionable part of uranium (U-235) is only 1% of that uranium, the rest is nonfissionable U-238.
Thorium is about twice as abundant as Uranium (all isotopes). The MSR uses Thorium to create U-233, a fissionable but not naturally occurring Uranium isotope.
So the "unlimited energy aspect" is that about 200-300x more breedable Thorium exists than fissionable U-235.
A MSR nation could also try to breed U-238 into plutonium, which would provide another 100x more breeding stock, although LFTR never talked about U-238 breeding. IIRC the plutonium may be difficult to handle because of gamma rays, but I don't recall exactly.
While I don't have confidence that even LFTR/MSR reactors can get economical enough to challenge gas peakers, it may be possible to make truly price-competitive MSR electricity with the right modular design. I wish the Chinese the best of luck, because if they do it will spur the rest of the world to adopt this about-as-clean-and-safe-as-it-gets nuclear design.
> Thorium is about twice as abundant as Uranium
China has thorium, and while less than others [1], it’s better than they do with uranium [2].
> it may be possible to make truly price-competitive MSR electricity with the right modular design
Yes. But probably not in the near term with thorium. This isn’t designed to be cheaper. It’s designed to be more available to China than being dependent on Russian deposits.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a
[2] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1800.pdf
That's what you learn playing factorio
Eh, U-235 is .7%, not 1%, but also U-238 can be bred into Plutonium. What makes Thorium interesting -besides its abundance- is that U-233 is very difficult to work with, so proliferation concerns are mitigated.
Not really, the US bred several tons of U-233 from thorium in the 60s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
MSRs have some attractive features, but they also have significant drawbacks.
The most pressing is that fissionable material is spread throughout the fluid, so fission and decay of fission products is occurring right up to the edge of the fluid. The walls and pipes containing the molten salt, and anything dipped into the salt, are exposed to unmoderated neutrons. One can shield using (say) graphite, but then damage to that (and soaking up of radioactive materials) become issues.
The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge was near the end of its radiation exposure lifetime when the program ended.
Contrast this to light water reactors. These are designed so that no lifetime component sees unmoderated neutrons. There's a thick barrier of water between the fissioning fuel and the reactor vessel wall and the support structures for the fuel bundles. The bundles themselves are exposed, but they are replaced for refueling and are not lifetime components.
I think it has a key advantage for China specifically though which is it consumes significantly less water and they have a lot of water poor territory.
The oakridge experiment ended and not a lot of R&D has been done on salt reactors. It makes sense that China is still basically in research and testing phases for molten salts.
> One can shield using (say) graphite
Oh dear god, no. Graphite is a very good moderator, it is in no way a shield. Those two properties are (sort of) opposites of each other. Lead makes the cheapest and best shield. Also, those parts that are exposed to neutron flux stay radioactive for about 10 years. So it shortens their lifetime in the reactor but the waste isn't a big issue.
> Oh dear god, no [...] Lead makes the cheapest and best shield.
Oh my, definitely no :-) Do not use lead for neutron shielding. You're thinking gamma radiation but then we're talking apples vs oranges then. You want atoms comparable in size to neutrons, so something with plenty of hydrogen. Think water or PET (plastic) when you don't want water to "leak" when transporting a source. For thermal neutrons maybe PET impregnated with boron. Now neutrons may generate gamma when captured by hydrogen, then you may want some lead for secondary effects like that but I am not sure how strong those are.
Lead is fine for shielding of sufficiently energetic neutrons, which can lose energy to lead by inelastic nuclear collisions. But below the threshold for that lead does very little.
Maybe as a special case then as a thin layer before following up with water or PET, or PET impregnated with boron. But would also need an extra layer following it for secondary gamma emission from neutron capture.
Lead is essentially useless as a shield for neutrons that are below the minimum excitation energy of a lead nucleus. Elastic neutron collisions with lead leave the neutron energy essentially unchanged.
I assume this is why an alloy of lead is used in practice. Still doesn't change the fact that graphite is a moderator not a shielding material. Also, structural materials in reactors are usually invisible to neutrons and a sandwich of materials is often used. Different layers do different things. Usually, one layer of shielding and one layer of a material that isn't impacted (much) by neutron flux for structural strength.
There is a rabbithole for almost all of these material choices, especially in nuclear. Not going down that rabbithole in a discussion targeted at folks who don't spend their lives working in nuclear doesn't make that person wrong. It makes them an effective communicator.
PS Lead is a very very common shielding material in nuclear.
A moderator is a neutron shielding material, since it removes energy from the neutrons. That's what moderation is all about. Water is a much better moderator, but graphite still performs the function.
To add to this, even with the shielding provided by water in light water reactors, the neutron exposure is _the_ limiting factor for the reactor vessel.
The metric to look for is called "DPA" (displacements per atom), the number of neutron collisions that a material can tolerate before losing enough structural integrity to fall below the acceptable limits. The best modern reactor steels are at 150-180 DPA.
And a lot of potentially cool reactors like TWR (travelling wave reactor) end up being logistically impossible because lifetime-limited components will be exposed to multiple hundreds of DPAs.
Many old LWR's have had their reactor vessels heat treated during a maintenance break to undo some of that neutron radiation damage and extend the life of the reactor.
Not sure whether it would be possible to do something similar to a liquid fueled reactor, including all the hot pipework. Maybe, but yet another cost. Notably some of the recent MSR projects propose replacing the entire reactor every now and then (Terrestrial or whatever they were called, not sure if they are still around).
What absorbs the neutrons then?
The thorium cycle is generally neutron negative.
> thorium cycle is generally neutron negative
Source for the fuel cycle?
Thorium 232 -> 233 is neutron negative. But after that you get all kinds of nonsense.
Thorium 232 is the thorium in the cycle yes. And all kinds of nonsense is correct for the daughter products. But in general, to actually use do anything with thorium you need excess neutrons.
Even the daughter uranium 233 only produces on average 2.48 neutrons per fission, so it’s very difficult even in a combined lifecycle process to have enough - thorium doesn’t produce uranium 233 immediately (takes almost 30 days), neutron capture with that low a ratio requires a LOT of thorium, which is going to mostly just suck up all neutrons and you won’t have any extra for addition uranium 233 fissions, etc.
It’s quite difficult (impossible?)to have actually work without a source of a large amount of additional neutrons.
> to actually use do anything with thorium you need excess neutrons
Unless 100% of those neutrons is being absorbed by the thorium, this means you'll have neutron flux at the boundary. Which, for a liquid moderator, means all the pipes and tanks and pumps.
It’s almost like there is a reason why it’s not commonly used despite all the hype.
Sure, if you ignore all the parts of the neutron economy that make it possible to work. The part everyone missed in this discussion is that all of the numbers of neutrons (and their barns) aren't constants. Since the fuel is a fluid, you can use density and shape to improve the neutron economy in the reactor core. Basically, when the atoms are closer together, the economy improves. You can also use a better moderator like graphite since the basic design is safer and the rate of fission is just easier to control.
And considering that people made these things work 60 years ago without modern computers, the idea that its impossible or needs 40 years of research seems pretty far fetched. What is left of the nuclear industry wants to build current designs like the AP1400. That is a great idea, but there are things you can do with a LFTR that you can't do with an AP1400. The biggest of them is making synthetic fuel. The other advantages are the amount of waste produced and the fact that you can make a LFTR into a waste burner consuming the spent fuel rods from a AP1400. The downside is you actually have to fix nuclear regulations to do this and getting politicians to do that has proved impossible.
There are no technological barriers, this is entirely political.
> What is left of the nuclear industry wants to build current designs like the AP1400
That's just Westinghouse. There is a lot of research happening in small and medium-sized reactors.
> There are no technological barriers, this is entirely political
To thorium MSRs? The main barrier is economic.
Nah, it’s just hard and silly - without a lot of payoff. When there are plenty of easier options for most nations.
That you’re even discussing graphite moderated (?!!) makes this pretty clear.
> That you’re even discussing graphite moderated (?!!) makes this pretty clear.
And why would this be? Is graphite expensive? No it isn't. Also, we created a working one of these designed in the 1960's without computers. You seriously think this is hard compared to other types of engineering we do today?
A LFTR can also do things that a PWR or BWR can't and has several major advantages. But since it uses pencil lead apparently we can't even try it.
Because it has dangerous behavior in real reactors due to the void co-efficient behavior, to the point of… being the cause of the largest nuclear disaster in recorded history?
Not OP but he maybe referring to the new gas cooled gen 4 reactors not Soviet RBMKs. The ones I heard are working with sealed beads of uranium, encased in porous carbon, then some other layers, including some carbide (silicon?). The porosity of carbon absorbs gases but they ultimately stay sealed. The whole thing is helium cooled.
A better explanation of the significance:
https://www.stdaily.com/web/English/2025-11/17/content_43298...
Thanks! We've put that link in the toptext as well.
> Now, the research team is conducting systematic studies on the key scientific issues related to adding thorium, and aims to completethe construction of a 100-megawatt TMSR demonstration project, and begin operation by 2035.
For comparison: A commercial nuclear power plant is 1 gigawatt, a 10x difference. I assume this would be the next step.
The typical 1 gigawatt rating for a nuclear power reactor is measuring electrical output. Given the various inefficiencies, the actual reactor output (as heat) is something like 3x that amount. Whereas a research reactor will be quoted as thermal output.
That to say, a typical commercial reactor might be 30x the power of a 100 MW research device.
This came up several times the last few weeks, but never stayed on the front for long. Also no comments.
I guess soon the west has to copy chinas tech.
> soon the west has to copy chinas tech
Thorium MSRs don't make sense for the Americas, Europe or Australia. We have plenty of uranium.
Nuclear is receiving solid research backing in both America and China. (India is playing too. Austrlia is having an identity crisis.) Our different geologies mean there will probably be one solution for China, India and North Africa, on one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other hand.
I don't think Australia is having an identity crisis. There won't be research backing from Australia as the Nuclear agenda one party is pushing is essentially a cover story for replacing antique coal plants with gas plants. A genuine Nuclear plan for Australia would include realistic timelines and budgets, and use of other renewables to replace coal plants that are failing today while meeting climate targets. And meeting climate targets is important, because if we don't care about them then coal and gas will remain cheaper than Nuclear for Australia due to having large reserves.
> I don't think Australia is having an identity crisis
That was tongue in cheek. It's being indecisive. I guess that's conserved across the Anglosphere.
The cost of the fuel is less than 0.1% of the cost of running a NPP. The cost of the fuel has almost nothing to do with the economics of nuclear power. And considering a liquid fueled reactor makes heat in the 900C range and a AP1400 makes heat in the 300C range, they aren't really substitutes for each other. The amount of incorrect information in this thread is truly shocking. For example, you can make synthetic fuel from a LFTR, you can't from a BWR or a PWR. That might be a valuable feature, don't you think.
> cost of the fuel has almost nothing to do with the economics of nuclear power
Who said this?
> considering a liquid fueled reactor makes heat in the 900C range and a AP1400 makes heat in the 300C range, they aren't really substitutes for each other
Nobody said this either.
There are more reactor designs in the world than LFTR, PWR and BWR, particularly if we're talking at the demonstration scale like this reactor.
I don't know of a production NPP that isn't a PWR or BWR online today. One could exist but it would be very very old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
Came online ~10 years ago. One could quibble about design and construction timelines; the reactor is still half-experimental, and the Russians are conducting that breeder program very slowly. But it's not a 1980s design frozen in time.
> don't know of a production NPP that isn't a PWR or BWR
Is the article about a production power plant?
This is US tech that China is copying. We could have done this at anytime in the last 60 years. The blocker isn't technology, its scientifically uninformed politics.
Rickover was breeding with Thorium at Shippingport in the 1950’s. What China did is not new
Breeding is a technology looking for a business case.
It's more expensive than just using fresh uranium in current market conditions. It's a way from keeping future uranium shortages from making nuclear power more expensive; it's not a way to make nuclear cheaper than it currently is.
It also apparently provides a way to make reactors that don’t depend as much on water so they don’t all have to be near the coast.
This would allow Western China to also develop reactors to help underpin their renewable and coal energy.
> The interest in MSR technology and Thorium breeding did not disappear however. China's nuclear power production relies heavily on imported uranium,[10] a strategic vulnerability in the event of i.e. economic sanctions. Additionally, the relative lack of water available for cooling PWRs west of the Hu line is a limiting factor for siting them there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1?wprov=sfti1#History
> also apparently provides a way to make reactors that don’t depend as much on water so they don’t all have to be near the coast
Non-water microreactors broadly fall into two categories: ones using a different moderator, most commonly sodium, a sodium salt or helium; and those using heat pipes. Most microreactor designs don’t use water.
Nuclear plants don't need more water than a coal plant of the same power, they both use the same steam turbine with water as cold source.
Emphasis on current market conditions. Relations with uranium mining countries and environmental opposition to uranium mining could shift conditions.
The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive at the present and would the price of uranium rise enough that breeders would become economically viable most countries would just stop bothering with nuclear power altogether.
The cost of nuclear power is almost entirely capex and financing, not opex. Uranium input cost for nuclear power plants is 0.5c/kWh. With breeders you can divide that by about 100.
At least as of a couple years ago nuclear costs just a little more than solar plus storage and that’s not stopping anyone heh.
With recent price drops of solar and storage the difference is now multiples.
This is just plain false. Learn the difference between capacity cost and utilization cost.
Capex and financing is still an issue for many countries, and the opex is a non-zero commitment beyond just the fiscal portion. Most countries that pass-over nuclear energy are fairly justified in their decision. The status-quo is still not super psyched about nuclear proliferation.
There is room to change that, but the cards are very heavily stacked in China's favor. America's bad at the financing part, fickle when it comes to enforcement & supply chains, and ostensibly 2 days away from bailing on the IAEA itself. The proliferation-resistance of Thorium reactors gives China an export trump card that America will struggle to match.
> The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive
Let me fix that for you: "The truth is that nuclear power is not that financially attractive in the bureaucratic high cost litigious Anglo-sphere". And that's pretty much all infrastructure these days, unfortunately.
They’re not financially attractive in other parts of the world either. China, a zero litigation single party state, is building some but a tiny % compared to their renewable buildout
They need a lot of energy from a variety of sources. China has 30 or so reactors under construction (half or so of all active projects).
"China currently has 58 operable reactors with a total capacity of 56.9 GW. A further 30 reactors, with a total capacity of 34.4 GW are under construction" [1]
So, yes, but...
China installed 256GW of solar in the first 6 months of 2025 [2]. A full year estimate of ~350gw. So, the total of all nuclear under construction is 1/10th of the solar they installed in one year.
Don't get me wrong, its cool to see diversity of non fossil sources, glad they are building some, but its a niche in their overall energy buildout. And they can only build that small niche because they dont have to be market priced, its state subsidized.
[1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/ten-new-reactors... [2] https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/global-solar-install...
Comparing nuclear reactor capacity to solar capacity is misleading because renewable capacity dramatically overstates actual generation. IIRC The capacity factor for solar ranges between %5-%25 of total capacity generated.
That doesn't significantly change the argument. Most solar plants have capacity factors of around 20% (5% might apply to home systems, but not commerical), compared to nuclear which has around 80%. So a factor of 4. So numbers change a bit on the previous poster, China just installed 3x more solar in 1 year than all the nuclear under construction, or they essentially installed the same amout of solar in one year as all existing and under construction nuclear combined. And if we look at projections, next year they likely will install twice as much solar...
While China is often put up as the poster child for nuclear power, they are actually a great example of how nuclear is being overtaken by renewables. China's 2019 plan was that by 2035 nuclear would account for ~8% of generated electricity (up from ~5%). Since then percentage dropped to 4.5% (and the drop seems to be accelerating). Unless something dramatically changes nuclear will account for less than 4% (not the planned 8%) of generated electricity by 2035. All that is due to the raise of renewables (largely solar). I suspect we will not see China build close to those projected 200 GW and the percentage to be even lower, just due to the exponential growth in solar.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
Yes yes, one of the usual reflexive context free points repeated every time solar comes up. Whatever the actual capacity factor is(5% is not a serious number ), I’m sure chinas energy planners know that, it’s hardly a gotcha. And still they’ve choose to build solar at a volume massively dwarfing nuclear
(Edit: cycomanic explained it much better and more patiently than me)
It's not the litigiousness that makes it expensive. France was producing nuclear power plants at a cost per watt that nearly matches modern China. In fact, the mind-numbing cost overruns seem unique to the US.
Here's a Nature article about it:
https://archive.ph/Tpe0j
Seems to me like it's more of a story of corruption than of over-regulation
france cant do it any more either. Flamanville was 12 years late and [1] 400% over budget. EPR2 is already delayed and over budget and they havent even started building yet!
UK cant do it either, see hinkley point c [2]
[1] https://www.nucnet.org/news/long-delayed-nuclear-plant-conne... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/edf-announces-hi...
That might be somewhat true but Flamanville was still about $4/watt while Vogtle 3 and 4 (which were built around the same time) were about $15/watt. It's still hard to place France and the US in the same bucket. The US really is uniquely inept at nuclear costs
Flammanville 3 was about €14/W, or about $16/W.
https://mastodon.energy/@Sustainable2050/113695635521714572
The UK does the same thing. In fact, its across the entire west. Its almost as if absurd over-regulation is expensive. The Vogtle plant construction for example had to deal with 3 different tranches of changes to the design caused by regulators. Its not corruption, its over-regulation. If it is corruption, it is corrupt politicians intentionally over-regulating because their backers make lots of money extracting FFs.
China has more uranium reserves and less thorium reserves than the US though
Most thorium: India, Brazil, Australia, US, Turkey
Most uranium: Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, Namibia
They highlight less the advantages from breeding, than other advantages of the molten salt design, like not needing a lot of cooling water, which allows this reactor to operate in the Gobi desert, the possibility of replacing the fuel without halting the reactor and various safety features.
> other advantages of the molten salt design, like not needing a lot of cooling water
This advantage is conserved by all non-water moderated reactor designs.
Nuclear reactors don't need a particularly big amount of cooling water.
The thermodynamic cycle needs a cold source though, and it's most commonly water. This doesn't depend on the reactor design and this is equally as true of coal plants.
As long as you are making electricity out of a thermodynamic cycle, you need a heat source (be it a flame or a nuclear reaction) and a cold source.
There is no business case for basic research, but if you stop basic research long enough you will have no business. The United States and its allies seem to have completely forgotten this.
It makes sense for big monopolies like Bell, or the CCP. The investment can be justified if the ones investing are confident they will be able to capture the value and not some competitor.
No business sense for scientific research? You know you're completely destroying the argument for capitalism, right?
Bell Labs also served to maintain positive perceptions of the monopoly. Unix was famously developed despite the knowledge that AT&T would not be able to offer it as an independent product.
This isn't basic research, it's applied research. Applied research lives or dies on the plausibility of the ultimate applicability.
This isn't basic research. The US has had this tech for half a century. There's just no reason to do it. Uranium is plentiful and cheap and arguably safer.
The fuel cost of a NPP has almost no impact on the NPP's operational expenses and a LFTR (like all liquid fuel designs) is a far safer design. Nobody in the energy industry has talked about the fuel cost in nuclear in 50 years. It isn't even a consideration when comparing designs. Waste volume, safety, politics, and construction labor costs are the factors which are considered (also temp of the heat maybe).
> in current market conditions.
That is, as long as we don't build more nuclear power plants.
If you want to increase nuclear power adoption, then you're not going to stay in “current market conditions” for long.
Reducing the energy sector to pure business would probably work in the 1990s, but not now, when countries are afraid of strategic dependence on potentially hostile suppliers.
Uranium isn't as ubiquitous as, say, natural gas, and stockpiling it comes with a big heap of physical problems. I can definitely see countries spending on more expensive technology if it comes with more energy security.
The entire Chinese way is to copy and steal from the West, its the other way around.
Clearly you have not visited China.
Try it someday. You _will_ be surprised by some of the technologies there.
In the present day, this is a delusional take.
China has engaged in industrial espionage on an unprecedented scale. To the extent there is delusion, it's in American spies being slow to returning the favour.
I mean we're already doing that in many avenues. Solar being the most obvious. The only functioning solar manufacturing plants in the US are Chinese-owned and are only here to take advantage of subsidies.
Plenty has been learned by the US/West from copying their approach to agriculture, robotics in factories, mining, drones, etc. Have you seen their electromagnetic catapult technology?? That stuff seems like its from the space-age! There's even plenty of tech that we can't really explain like the all-moving wingtips on the new J-50s. (and yes, I'm avoiding talking about their supersonic cruise missiles)
Lunacy and CCP propaganda
This post is just an excerpt—it's the first 4 paragraphs of a 29-paragraph article,
https://archive.is/DQpXM ("China reaches energy independence milestone by ‘breeding’ uranium from thorium"–SCMP)
Thanks! - since you've found a readable link, I've swapped https://humanprogress.org/china-reaches-energy-milestone-by-... out for the original source at the top, and put the archive link in the top text.
also to remember that thorium is the dominant radioactive byproduct of "rare" earth metal refinement; so they're probably isolating large amounts of it so might as well figure out something to do with it.
Interesting claim that the reactor doesn't need water and can be built away from the coast. I thought all reactors used steam to turn a turbine to produce electricity. Something special here?
This type of reactor would probably use super-critical CO2 instead of water to transfer the heat from the reactor to the turbines, so no water. The design is safer that way.
The way water might be used in this design is to make a synthetic fuel instead of electricity. In that case, you are swapping out the turbines for a process that extracts CO2 from seawater, uses electrolysis to crack the water and then a FT process to make a (renewable) hydrocarbon fuel (you might even use some feedstock to make it more efficient).
Many reactors are built far away from coasts, they need water in general, but artificial lakes, or rivers are enough.
I think I read recently that this was a US idea that was abandoned that China took up and made it work. Is that accurate?
The US had a similar but not identical reactor in the 60s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
It had uranium-233 from breeding from thorium in other reactors.
The main problem with these things is they seem very unprofitable. The US reactor ran from 1964 to 1969 and produced a small amount of power but is still running about $10m a year in decommissioning costs. You thing you can run these things a while and think it's over but:
>Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas: the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging"...
No country has seriously invested in the thorium fuel cycle because it cannot be used to create weapons. Unfortunately, the technology also began to look most promising as an energy source around the same time the Three Mile Island nuclear accident effectively ended all interest in nuclear energy in the United States.
India has shown some of the most interest to date, due to their lack of domestic uranium reserves. But it's been slow going their fast breeder reactor plans were delayed by like two decades. But it is built and it was loaded with fuel last month [0]
The French interest in breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing also originates from a similar concern about lack of domestic access to raw uranium. Though Super-phoenix [0] was a more traditional uranium -> plutonium approach and not thorium. They gave up because just using uranium is way, way cheaper than synthesizing your own fissile materials.
[0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/indias-prototype...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
Thorium can be used to make weapons via the breeding cycle. It's much less convenient and straightforward than uranium/plutonium, but it is possible.
Theoretically, perhaps, but I don’t think anyone with a serious interest in weapons would pursue it. From a nonproliferation perspective, I’d guess the infrastructure necessary to remove contaminants from uranium bred through the thorium cycle would be costly and difficult to conceal.
Multiple countries have detonated nuclear bombs using U-233 derived from thorium reactors! [0] Practically I agree with you that thorium is proliferation resistant and if someone is bomb hungry they won't prioritize it, but if you want to set up the bomb and all you have is thorium... The infrastructure wouldn't necessarily be significantly larger or worse than conventional enrichment.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233
Seems presence of U-232 is more manageable than I thought.
You can absolutely make nuclear weapons with U233.
Technically true and practically false. Only once has anyone done that. The bomb was considered a dud and the research was ultimately destroyed. So while you could, it would require completely reinventing all the original research that went into making the original one. Lookup operation teapot for more details.
Also, it’s only energy positive under some specific carefully managed conditions, and is a real pain to make work.
If you have easy access to uranium, you just use it directly instead.
Depends on what you want out of your reactor. You want to make a synthetic fuel, Thorium not Uranium. You want a liquid fueled reactor (because its safer and proliferation resistant), Thorium not Uranium. You want 900C heat instead of 300C heat, Thorium not Uranium.
The fuel costs of a NPP are a tiny rounding error. If you want electricity and want to build it today, Uranium not Thorium. You are using arguments from 50 years ago when many incorrect assumptions about cost structure and fuel availability were used to make decisions.
The cope is strong here. The only liquid fueled reactors with any operational experience got shut down because of corrosion issues causing major leaks.
The pros you mention are theoretical - because the cons came out in force when actually tried, and they’ve been tried many times by many different countries.
Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Hi...
Well, fible energy is trying to do lots. Gates invested in MSTR (molten salt thorium reactor).
But regulation, while it has its purposes, stifles many things. At the same time time it’s not even doing what they were meant for.
There are a number of countries being run far better than the US or the EU
Gates invested in the traveling wave reactor which was a bust. Then he sold his entire investment in nuclear several years ago. He's very rich so perhaps he has other nuclear investments that I'm not aware of but none are in the MSTR space unless they are secret/private.
> none are in the MSTR space unless they are secret/private
TerraPower is not secret.
> There are a number of countries being run far better than the US or the EU
It will be funny if China is what convinces the US to be more open to free industry. Opposite day vs the 1970s
To be fair, these advances are not being made in China due to "free industry". They have something of a command economy for their critical sectors. So it's unfair not to point out that it's easy to make advances if a nation as a whole points to a hill and says, "take that hill". Of course you can do it under those circumstances.
If it's just your company or some trifling consortium trying to develop nuclear energy advances in a "free industry" environment, the guy who is just slapping up windmills, [T Boone Pickens RIP], is just gonna mop the floor with you. There's just no way to compete on moonshots like that.
China has many capital controls but generally supports industrial activity in the state interest; the US does the opposite.
Historical experiments with alternative fuel cycles, not serious development attempts. A serious development attempt happened in India though.
Yeah, the US had an experimental Molten Salt Reactor in the 60s
This type of progress shows China is capable of moving from an economy that’s build on labor arbitrage or copying others to genuine innovation. It’s also further evidence of the extreme competence of the CCP in governance, which I feel should be acknowledged despite their authoritarian negatives.
> This type of progress shows China is capable of moving from an economy that’s build on labor arbitrage or copying others to genuine innovation
Why wouldn't it?
> This type of progress shows China is capable of moving from an economy that’s build on labor arbitrage or copying others to genuine innovation
China has been genuinely innovating in manufacturing techniques for decades. If anything, that ingenunuity peaked when Xi began his term, and has been degrading as his dictatorial tendencies needlessly hamstrung Chinese industry.
"extreme competence of the CCP in governance"
I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate from one particular technical field to governance in general.
The US managed to defeat both Nazi Germany and Japan plus develop nuclear weapons, all in 1941-5. Was it a proof of extreme competence of the US government in general? The some government tolerated abuse of blacks and forced segregation in the South, I would call it a serious governance failure.
Very good. Thought-termination achieved. Branch pruned. Back-tracking...
Now where's my pony?
Yea but afaik China doesn’t have that kind of issue. They do have an issue with anticommunists but I’m not sympathetic to their cause.
They very much d have that sort of issue and worse. Uighurs and other minorities, treatment of gays....
Worse than us? We're conducting a genocide.
There's a danish company building modular container sized molten salt reactors.
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/
They have built a few prototypes and 'Copenhagen Atomics plans to run its first nuclear chain-reaction at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in 2027.'
Maybe they get production ramped up for 2050 targets, but not on the radar for 2030 targets. Or replacing your antique coal plant today.
Thorium is abundant in Sri Lanka’s mineral sands. Mined with dredgers at shallow depths 10-100m off the western coast.
Thorium is abundant anywhere where Rare Earths are mined. You can get it almost anywhere. You don't even mine it, you process it out of tailing piles from other mining operations.
Meanwhile Germany just decommissioned its last nuclear reactors. Given the challenges of baseload renewable generation, it's frustrating to watch working infrastructure being dismantled while we're still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.
Comparing those old conventional reactors to MSR is not suitable at all. And they were not fully functional past their expiry date.
> Comparing those old conventional reactors to MSR is not suitable at all
It is given we're talking about perceptions. I see no evidence Germany's Greens are suddently rational when it comes to modern reactor designs, of which MSRs are one.
> And they were not fully functional past their expiry date.
Most of Germany's Nuclear Power Plant could have run for many additional decades. Especially the Konvoi-PWRs from the 80's
To be fair, a lot of nuclear reactors around the world should be shut down just due to age and outdated designs. However they should also be being replaced with modern reactors, which few people have, which makes shutting them down while we are still largely utilizing fossil fuel power and chemical plants really dumb.
Germany has a 500 GW interconnection queue for storage.
It will be interesting to see how long the ”baseload” talking point lasts.
The baseload talking point has never made sense but storage doesn't make it make less sense. Baseload here is definitionally power sources that can't economically follow the demand curve. They carry the exact same problem that intermittent power sources like solar do, in that you need dispatchable power sources to augment them so that they can actually meet demand, the only difference is that the cause of this is that generation stays constant while load varies instead of both generation and load varying.
Baseload is not, and has never been, a feature. It's just a drawback that can be handled so long as only some of your power comes from such sources.
Batteries augment base load power sources the exact same way they augment intermittent ones, they take power from them when there is excess and give power back when there isn't making them effectively dispatachable power.
> The baseload talking point has never made sense
Um, yes it has. When you use solar or wind for baseload, it must be backed up by a spinning reserve. When you calculate the combined CO2 output of both the renewables and the spinning reserve, you learn it is more than just using gas by itself (and often it is more than just using oil or coal). There has never been a renewable power source used for baseload that has reduced CO2 emissions per watt. The math and laws of physics basically prevents it from happening. You want that to change, learn how to purify poly-silica more efficiently. And nobody (and I mean nobody) is even working on that. You don't pay for power, you pay for power you control with a switch. Power you don't control is called an explosion.
Germany has the most expensive and dirtiest grid in the developed world. They get the majority of their baseload power from other countries, often generated by nuclear or gas. Also, that you think they have 500 GW of anything that generates power is pretty funny. The only thing your comment says is that you don't understand anything about how power is generated or how an electrical grid works. People like you are why we still use so much FFs. You can't solve AGW with accounting tricks.
PS Maybe ask Spain how that renewable baseload generated power is doing for them.
Germany sourced 57% of all power from renewables in the first 9mo of 2025 [1]. They seem to be doing just fine, might be time to update your talking points
1. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/energy-industry-relieve...
By all the doomerism about German and nuclear there is at least Wendelstein 7-x doing frontier work. It's fine to get rid of legacy nuclear if there is a feasible bridge ahead.
Not sure what the point of this comment is. China has its equivalent EAST, France has ITER. Countries can do both fission and fusion research. To me the problem isn't that Germany closed some legacy reactors, but that too little is done into looking into alternative designs.
Also France. Rip Superphênix
China is far better at long term societal planning. Ultimately, I expect they will be the ones who can solve the climate crisis, after being one of the biggest contributors to the problem.
> after being one of the biggest contributors to the problem.
How many "Made in China" products do you have at home right now? Who is contributing to the problem?
Actually by far the biggest, in terms of total greenhouse emissions (30% of the world). Though other countries emit a lot more per capita.
Sure, but most of that is from industrial production, and really should be debited on importing nations’ CO2 accounts. Whereas in the US transportation, heating and construction are the main consumers.
A detailed explanation of the Thorium Fuel Cycle [1].
I'm glad China is doing this even though I'm skeptical about nuclear power ever being commercially viable. At least they're trying different things.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IqcRl849R0
I wonder if people would think China copied this from the West.
They did copy it from the west. That you don't know this just means you don't follow a niche part of research. Its still true though.
[flagged]
We have basically limitless carbon free energy with the tech we have now: solar, wind, batteries, fission breeders, large power grids that can move power around cheaply, etc. Put all those together and we have incredible energy abundance.
We also have the ability to electrify most transport except maybe long haul trucking and long haul aviation. Aviation (ALL aviation) accounts for less than 5% of global CO2 emissions, which means we could leave that alone and cut elsewhere until we have batteries and other infrastructure good enough for that.
Build all this out and it'll be cheaper and more scalable than what we currently have.
We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it. Meanwhile China is eating our lunch. Make America Great Again! By... pretending it's 1945 and trying to LARP the previous century.
Classic innovators' dilemma at the national level.
I'd love to see as much electrification as possible.
On the aviation note, sadly, aviation bats higher than its C02 accounting. Contrails add another 1-2% on top of contribution from it's C02 emissions. It's entirely avoidable and could be resolved at relatively low cost.
https://contrails.org/faq/#how-are-contrails-contributing-to...
If that’s the case it makes aviation like 6-7%, still low. Coal fired electricity generation is king when it comes to climate change, followed by oil fueled land transport and natural gas. Deforestation is higher too. Aviation is part of the long tail.
If grid energy was cheap enough, synthetic fuel for aircraft and trucks would be competitive.
Nope, you can't make synthetic fuel at anywhere near a competitive price from electricity. To make a synthetic fuel, the major energy input is heat (yes I know, you use electrolysis to crack the water, its a minor part of the energy required). The only way to make a cheap synthetic fuel is from a nuclear reactor that produces heat in the 900C range (could be 700C or 1100C, but near there). You can't do that with solid fuel reactors, you need a liquid fueled reactor for that. And you need Thorium for a liquid fueled reactor. That's why this design is so popular.
> We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it.
Yes, and also vast oil and gas reserves China doesn't have.
Also there is strong public fear and dislike of nuclear power.
In countries where there are no or little fossil fuels it is mainly this public opinion which has crippled the nuclear industry. Germany is a prime example.
Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.
> Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.
That really isn’t true. The reason Shanghai didn’t expand their maglev to Hangzhou is because residents were worried about electrical magnetic radiation, which I don’t think is really a thing. Nuclear took a long time to get started in China because people thought the government to be inept and corrupt, an image that has only recently faded away in the last decade. Without free elections, public opinion is actually much more important if you want to avoid economically destructive riots.
But this all happens in back rooms, the legal system isn’t very relevant, so if you have an issue but it isn’t a very popular one, you don’t really have any recourse. For example, niche environmental issues, or ones that aren’t widely recognized yet as dangerous…
Public opinion here appears to count for nearly jack squat so I don’t buy this explanation at all.
FF extraction is very profitable and has been for a long time. Those that make money from extraction spend a lot on lobbying. They don't want nuclear power because its the only thing that can really replace FFs. The public opinion angle is just useful idiots being manipulated by people who make money from FF extraction. That makes it far easier to get the politicians to do what they want (kill nuclear).
fossil fuel also underpins the us dollar so there’s that too
"Public opinion is obviously much less important in China."
In the US public opinion doesn't really matter either. It's the oligarchs' opinions that matter
> We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it.
You don't want to discount the cultural attachment people have to what their parents did and their childhood.
China has distracted the USA energy focus by dumping cheap solar panels here while continuing to develop advanced nuclear generation capabilities at home.
China is simply betting on all horses: solar, wind, thorium, batteries, coal even, anything to not buy foreign oil and be as independent, self-sufficient as possible. Seems like it's working too
Exactly. That's less noticed by many people. Just give you two examples:
1.While China scaled up the EV production, the development of Hydrogen based technology is still going on. There are some progress but lost in the bigger noise of EV.
2.China became the largest automobile exporter, leading by EV. But most people thought that's because EV took over ICE. That's partially true because EV dominate the export. What the most people missing is a quite portion of export are ICE cars. Because the ICE engine from China achieved higher energy transformation efficiency than Japanese and German cars. Again the information was lost in the EV noise.
Seems like a wise thing to do too.
Yup.. Happens to align somewhat with climate goals too, luckily for the rest of us. Once solar+batteries becomes the cheapest form of generation, the coal usage should also drop, if that isn't already the case
Luckily it is already the case, and it looks like coal is starting to drop in china
> Once solar+batteries becomes the cheapest form of generation, the coal usage should also drop
Marginal versus bulk. It can make sense, economically, to keep building coal plants even if solar is cheaper if you’re building solar as fast as you can and still need more power.
How exactly has it distracted the U.S?
I don't see the U.S rushing to adopt either renewables or nuclear. We're just increasing our fossil fuel burning (natural gas).
> I don't see the U.S rushing to adopt either renewables or nuclear. We're just increasing our fossil fuel burning (natural gas)
This is wrong. Natural gas is falling from 42% of U.S. electricity generation in '23 and '24 to 40% in '25E and '26E [1]. Renewables, meanwhile, keep marching from 23% ('24) to 24% ('25E) and 26% ('26E). (Nuclear falls from 19% ('24) to 18% ('25E and '26E).
[1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
That's capacity, not generation. Getting through the accounting tricks that make renewables seem viable is a challenge. 1 watt of nuclear capacity is worth 1.5 watts of FF and 9 watts of renewables. That's because the amount of power from each type of plant is very different due to downtimes of generation. Nuclear runs all the time and refuels for a couple of days every 18 months (depending on the reactor). FF plants run most of the time by require 10x more maintenance downtime. Renewables only make power about 10% of the time. That's how they skew the numbers to make renewables seem viable when they produce a shockingly low amount of actual power. Oh, and if you use renewables for baseload you have to keep a spinning reserve which means they actually increase (not decrease) the amount of CO2 emitted per watt generated.
> That's capacity, not generation
Irrelevant. The question is what we're investing in. "The U.S" is "rushing to adopt...renewables."
> FF plants run most of the time
"CCGT capacity factor rose from 40% in 2008 to 57% in 2022" [1]. "In the western United States," meanwhile "the capacity value of PV plants can be in the range of 50% to 80%" [2].
> That's how they skew the numbers to make renewables seem viable when they produce a shockingly low amount of actual power
This is a report from Trump's EIA.
[1] https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/average-utili...
[2] https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57582.pdf
You should tell the folks overwhelming choosing to build and finance renewable power plants! They clearly missed this key point, they’ll surely be grateful you let them know that their renewable investments don’t make sense, and they should have picked nuclear due to it being cheaper overall