The basis of not only prosperity, but also the existence of modern civilization is available energy, the flow of which into our homes, offices, factories, gadgets and vehicles never stops.
We use energy to heat our homes, grow and preserve food, purify water, prepare food, and travel.
Modern energy sources
Due to today's low prices for fuel and energy, it is difficult to realize that humanity is facing an energy crisis in the near future. We are already facing the problem of overpopulation, and by 2040 the number of people on the planet will grow by 20%, from 7.36 billion to 9 billion. Rapidly developing and densely populated countries will consume twice as much energy.
Fossil fuels can easily supply the needs of nine billion people, but not for long. The planet is not that big, and all known reserves may dry up within a few centuries.
In addition, fossil fuels significantly accelerate global warming, which has already reached critical levels.
Promotional video:
Renewable energy sources, despite their widespread popularity, are not reliable, especially when you consider the amount of energy and fuel required.
Nuclear power
Nuclear reactors, on the other hand, meet all our requirements: they are reliable, do not emit tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and, despite our fears, are one of the safest sources of energy on earth.
Forgotten technology
During the Cold War, a new technology was invented - the molten salt reactor. The molten salt reactor refrains from using solid nuclear fuel and is based on liquid nuclear fuel, which operates with much greater efficiency and with minimal waste.
And in theory molten-salt reactors do not become unusable like conventional nuclear reactors. This method is reliable, clean and beneficial.
Radioactive waste
A molten salt reactor can even process radioactive waste, such as thorium, which is much larger than uranium in nature. Thorium in a molten salt reactor will be converted into energy in its pure form.
According to the calculations of scientists, made back in 1959, thorium, which is in the earth, and the energy generated from it, could be enough for mankind for billions of years.
And this is not just theory. This technology is quite viable and has already been demonstrated once.
Prototypes
Scientists at the Manhattan Project built two working prototypes of the molten salt reactor in the 1950s and 60s, respectively.
However, the reactors proved unsuitable for creating nuclear weapons, and politicians and the military, obsessed with the arms race, blocked funding for the project, despite the excellent energy potential.
The last working molten salt reactor was closed in 1969.
Today, some entrepreneurs, scientists and activists are determined to restore and modernize the technology, and they are working tirelessly to relaunch it, just like some interested states such as India and China.
China now spends more than $ 350 million a year developing and launching its own version of this technology, which was known back in the Cold War era.
The case for nuclear energy
Nuclear reactors make it possible to obtain a huge amount of fuel with minimal harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Uranium can generate about 16,000 times more energy than coal. At the same time, nuclear energy is millions of times cleaner.
Tackling climate change requires making decisions based on facts, not bias. The climate is concerned with how much greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, not where they come from - from renewable energy sources or nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power can provide energy to entire regions and states, while its waste will seem trivial compared to the waste generated by burning fossil fuels.
Economic benefit
Let's forget about the climate for a moment, because for decisions made at the political, global level, the economy is still more important than nature.
Despite the significant subsidies that nuclear power plants will receive from the state, the technology is one of the most profitable.
In 2016, nuclear energy became cheaper than energy from those gas-fired power plants that are started when needed, for example, to cope with a sudden spike in energy consumption.
Nuclear energy is also significantly cheaper than thermal energy, even if one does not take into account the hidden dangers of this outdated technology (death and injury from coal mining, air pollution leading to disease, and global warming, which threatens not only people, but also nature).
This by no means suggests that modern nuclear power plants and reactors are flawless. However, they are arguably the most cost-effective and efficient alternative to fossil fuels.
Fear
Despite statistics and scientific data, the public is still extremely wary of nuclear energy.
Tragic incidents such as the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima explosion irrationally frighten people, despite the fact that they do not reflect the actual state of affairs.
The fact is that the actual indicators for the safety of nuclear energy significantly exceed the indicators for gas, hydro and heat power engineering.
Irrational fear in this case is somewhat similar to the fear of airplanes. Due to the fact that plane crashes happen so rarely and are so actively discussed, people are subconsciously afraid to fly, despite the fact that air transport is the safest today. Flying an airplane is safer than walking.
The same thing happens with nuclear energy.
Few people know about accidents like San Bruno or the Banqiao Dam. In the first case, an explosion at a gas power plant in California killed eight people, and as a result of the collapse of a dam in China, 230,000 people died. This is a significantly higher death toll than the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Yet the public has no fear of hydroelectricity or natural gas.
Nuclear power has consistently demonstrated that it is the safest and most efficient technology available today. If molten salt reactors become a reality in the near future, the safety performance will increase even more.
What's the delay?
If thorium molten salt reactors are so good and profitable, why does the technology stand still?
The answer mainly boils down to the fact that the scientific part of the project is easier to complete than the engineering one. The development and safe start-up of molten salt reactors is a long and painstaking work, the completion of which depends on support and funding.
In addition, the molten salt is hazardous to the health of those who work with it.
The melt contains beryllium, which regulates nuclear fission. This is a very dangerous element. If material leaks, the beryllium will turn into crumbly “snow” that workers can inhale. This puts you at risk of developing lung cancer.
The molten salt also contains lithium, an element that contributes to the formation of a radioactive gas called tritium. Lithium is not as dangerous as beryllium, however, when it gets into the water, this heavy element makes it radioactive.
Despite all these potential hazards, good reactor design, proper safety protocols and protective gear can minimize these and other risks.