How much exactly and how does that compare to LWRs?
Hence they are concerned about it being weaponized. Enrichment
The main MSR concept is to have the fuel dissolved in the coolant as fuel salt, and ultimately to reprocess that online. Thorium, uranium, and plutonium all form suitable fluoride salts that readily dissolve in the LiF-BeF2 (FLiBe) mixture, and thorium and uranium can be easily separated from one another in fluoride form. Batch reprocessing is likely in the short term, and fuel life is quoted at 4-7 years, with high burn-up. Intermediate designs and the AHTR have fuel particles in solid graphite and have less potential for thorium use.
Does it offgas plutonium if you don't use plutonium salts as a starter? Are these people full of shit when they say it's easy to seperate and reprocess?
And no, that's not "enrichment". Again, you're confused about the difference between LWRs and MSRs. MSRs do not require "enriched" anything and do not output "enriched" anything.
MSR generates less waste than conventional nuclear plants because these reactors do not use fuel rods that are used in LWRs. In addition, the reprocessing of highly radioactive fuel salts is not needed with FHR because it is efficient at burning transuranic elements.
Definition it actually is. Created plutonium. Enrichment. It sooner becomes the concern of it being used to weaponize. As in Enrichment. You are the epitome of a dumb troll.
I am not reading your fuck dumb links. They aren't the links I submitted to you.
So you sooner stopped arguing the nuclear waste. 20 percent less waste is still waste.
I don't care about its bullshit the nigger ad campaign it ain't even built yet
sooner becomes the concern of it being used to weaponize. As in Enrichment.
So using molten salt is "weaponizing" it? I didn't read that in any of your links.
You are the epitome of a dumb troll.
No U
I am not reading your fuck dumb links
You're not reading YOURS either, apparently.
20 percent less waste is still waste.
Where in the literature does it say %20?
don't care about its bullshit the nigger ad campaign it ain't even built yet
I think we can both agree... Fuck bill gates.
This isn't some "new" thing. OP is confused, as you were. It's not "sodium". This technology has been around a while and wasn't utilized PRECISELY because you can't weaponize the byproducts, because the byproducts are infinitely smaller.
If by "run off" you meant water, there is none. And if you want to split hairs about a tiny iota of starter material and call it %20 to cover up your confusion, then we can't have a conversation.
You shouldn't get so mad about technical information, it only proves you don't know what you're talking about.
It says it on your link title. 20%. Read your link title.
You have said to me you haven't read anything I posted. Instead in your dumb stupid head you have just trolled the top Google hit of a bullshit advertisement. The reactor which you claimed originally wasn't nuclear. Then you said it had no waste and no run off either. It is there for you to read. You are talking shit. It creates plutonium you didn't even know it did.
Read yourself you are the dumbest nigger posting, you have no comprehension. I literally think you are a stupid bot. You don't understand anything past your programming all it did was read a dumb advertisement. Then you argue like a child continuous stupid nonsense. I am done talking to a fucking nigger. Reply again no point.
Such a simple point nuclear reactors have waste, they emit, and they have run off. Only a dumb nigger would argue otherwise. Tedious.
The rest of what I said apart from my first comment has been fact unlike your bullshit. You didn't know it was nuclear. Then you presumed there was no waste. Then you said it didn't create plutonium. You argued run off, you are arguing enrichment, and nuclear fuel. What is the plutonium? Fuel it feeds back in. Enrichment when it fuels it more. No point in debating run off. You don't comprehend English. You talk bullshit nigger. You don't understand how the thing works. You didn't view any of the links I submitted either. Can it be weaponized. Undoubtedly a Senate review if it ģets sold internationally. At this point it hasn't been built.
How much exactly and how does that compare to LWRs?
Does it offgas plutonium if you don't use plutonium salts as a starter? Are these people full of shit when they say it's easy to seperate and reprocess?
And no, that's not "enrichment". Again, you're confused about the difference between LWRs and MSRs. MSRs do not require "enriched" anything and do not output "enriched" anything.
https://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/science/generation/msr/#:~:text=MSR%20generates%20less%20waste%20than,efficient%20at%20burning%20transuranic%20elements.
Definition it actually is. Created plutonium. Enrichment. It sooner becomes the concern of it being used to weaponize. As in Enrichment. You are the epitome of a dumb troll.
I am not reading your fuck dumb links. They aren't the links I submitted to you.
So you sooner stopped arguing the nuclear waste. 20 percent less waste is still waste.
I don't care about its bullshit the nigger ad campaign it ain't even built yet
Fuck off dumb nigger.
So is it creating or enriching?
So using molten salt is "weaponizing" it? I didn't read that in any of your links.
No U
You're not reading YOURS either, apparently.
Where in the literature does it say %20?
I think we can both agree... Fuck bill gates.
This isn't some "new" thing. OP is confused, as you were. It's not "sodium". This technology has been around a while and wasn't utilized PRECISELY because you can't weaponize the byproducts, because the byproducts are infinitely smaller.
If by "run off" you meant water, there is none. And if you want to split hairs about a tiny iota of starter material and call it %20 to cover up your confusion, then we can't have a conversation.
You shouldn't get so mad about technical information, it only proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Fuck off you dumb nigger cunt.
You don't read, you troll.
It says it on your link title. 20%. Read your link title.
You have said to me you haven't read anything I posted. Instead in your dumb stupid head you have just trolled the top Google hit of a bullshit advertisement. The reactor which you claimed originally wasn't nuclear. Then you said it had no waste and no run off either. It is there for you to read. You are talking shit. It creates plutonium you didn't even know it did.
Read yourself you are the dumbest nigger posting, you have no comprehension. I literally think you are a stupid bot. You don't understand anything past your programming all it did was read a dumb advertisement. Then you argue like a child continuous stupid nonsense. I am done talking to a fucking nigger. Reply again no point.
Such a simple point nuclear reactors have waste, they emit, and they have run off. Only a dumb nigger would argue otherwise. Tedious.
The rest of what I said apart from my first comment has been fact unlike your bullshit. You didn't know it was nuclear. Then you presumed there was no waste. Then you said it didn't create plutonium. You argued run off, you are arguing enrichment, and nuclear fuel. What is the plutonium? Fuel it feeds back in. Enrichment when it fuels it more. No point in debating run off. You don't comprehend English. You talk bullshit nigger. You don't understand how the thing works. You didn't view any of the links I submitted either. Can it be weaponized. Undoubtedly a Senate review if it ģets sold internationally. At this point it hasn't been built.
Such a dumb fucking nigger
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2678551/when-to-encode-space-to-plus-or-20
Bruh... Those are fucking stand ins for spaces.
You know as much about reactors as you do HTML, which is to say nothing at all.
The more mad you get the more it proves your ignorance.
https://antinuclear.net/2021/03/22/bill-gates-backs-costly-nuclear-reactor-design-fueled-by-nuclear-weapon-usable-plutonium/
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/dangerous-decisions-about-advanced-nuclear-reactors-could-lead-new-threats-183934
https://mronline.org/2021/04/19/what-bill-gates-has-wrong-about-advanced-nuclear-reactors/
Read it
https://cdn.britannica.com/700x450/80/162180-004-89001F65.jpg