<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Molten-Salt Reactors</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/molten-salt-reactors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/molten-salt-reactors/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 07:40:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam J.</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/molten-salt-reactors/comment-page-1/#comment-2530140</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam J.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 03:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41218#comment-2530140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Elon Musk says that an area covered by solar cells that covers the same area as a nuclear power plant and most importantly the area set backs needed for safety would produce more power than the nuclear plant. I don&#039;t know if he&#039;s right or he just made that up but it&#039;s something to think about. He&#039;s a bit of a showboat but so far he does what he says he&#039;s going to do so ignoring him would not be wise.

I&#039;ve often wondered that the real problem is cheap energy storage. Cheap flywheels would probably be of great advantage on the ground. Using Earth as a shatter protector. Concrete super pre-stressed might work floating on air bearings. You would have losses from the air bearings but the low cost and small time needed to keep up rotation would maybe make it feasible. Maybe electrostatic bearings???? I read a book on flywheels that analyzed the different materials and author concluded that high tensile strength steel wire would be really cheap and higher performance than you would think. We also have the new material called nano-crystalline cellulose. Comes from trees, bacteria, scrap waste wood limbs and has super strong tensile strength and eventually super cheap.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elon Musk says that an area covered by solar cells that covers the same area as a nuclear power plant and most importantly the area set backs needed for safety would produce more power than the nuclear plant. I don&#8217;t know if he&#8217;s right or he just made that up but it&#8217;s something to think about. He&#8217;s a bit of a showboat but so far he does what he says he&#8217;s going to do so ignoring him would not be wise.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve often wondered that the real problem is cheap energy storage. Cheap flywheels would probably be of great advantage on the ground. Using Earth as a shatter protector. Concrete super pre-stressed might work floating on air bearings. You would have losses from the air bearings but the low cost and small time needed to keep up rotation would maybe make it feasible. Maybe electrostatic bearings???? I read a book on flywheels that analyzed the different materials and author concluded that high tensile strength steel wire would be really cheap and higher performance than you would think. We also have the new material called nano-crystalline cellulose. Comes from trees, bacteria, scrap waste wood limbs and has super strong tensile strength and eventually super cheap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Gilley</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/molten-salt-reactors/comment-page-1/#comment-2526498</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Gilley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41218#comment-2526498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bob, Good analysis. Do you live near Columbia , TN?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob, Good analysis. Do you live near Columbia , TN?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Sykes</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2016/12/molten-salt-reactors/comment-page-1/#comment-2526200</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Sykes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 13:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41218#comment-2526200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fundamental defect of solar and wind is the capacity factor. The best sites yield a wind capacity factor of 35% or so, but 10% is more common. Solar systems are typically less, often around 20% even in deserts.

This means that each kW of installed wind/solar requires a kW of backup conventional power. Wind/solar is a tiny part of total electricity production, and for now it survives by parasitizing the excess power of the conventional systems.

Because of the need for quick startup of the backup systems, the backup must be a gas fueled turbine/generator set. Coal and nuclear are too slow on startup to serve the need. (Hydro can, but that is another story.)  Moreover, gas systems must be idling, so they continuously emit carbon dioxide.

The net result is that in a so-called wind/solar system, 60 to 90% of the electrical power comes from the backup system. The costs of the backup system are never included in the numbers like those quoted above, but they clearly double the claimed costs of wind/solar, and they produced emissions that are not credited to the wind/solar facility they are backing up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fundamental defect of solar and wind is the capacity factor. The best sites yield a wind capacity factor of 35% or so, but 10% is more common. Solar systems are typically less, often around 20% even in deserts.</p>
<p>This means that each kW of installed wind/solar requires a kW of backup conventional power. Wind/solar is a tiny part of total electricity production, and for now it survives by parasitizing the excess power of the conventional systems.</p>
<p>Because of the need for quick startup of the backup systems, the backup must be a gas fueled turbine/generator set. Coal and nuclear are too slow on startup to serve the need. (Hydro can, but that is another story.)  Moreover, gas systems must be idling, so they continuously emit carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>The net result is that in a so-called wind/solar system, 60 to 90% of the electrical power comes from the backup system. The costs of the backup system are never included in the numbers like those quoted above, but they clearly double the claimed costs of wind/solar, and they produced emissions that are not credited to the wind/solar facility they are backing up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
