Molten Salt Reactors
From the article:
&gt;Problems with Molten Salt Reactors...
&gt;...but similar problems may show up in long-lived power reactors.<p>Author assumes that MSR components should last as long as vessels and secondary heat exchangers of solid-fuel reactors. The author should understand that vessel and primary heat exchanger of a fluid-fuel reactor is anologus to fuel rods. Solid fuel reactors just dispose primary heat exchangers or fuel rods every few years.
Example: Zircolloy tubes worth a MSR vessel + heat exchanger is just disposed along with partially fissioned degraded solid fuel every 4.5 years in a LWR. Zircolloy (Hafnium separated nuclear grade zirconium + additives) is more expensive than commercially available nickel based alloys.<p>Graphite is a solid with a crystal structure. Crystal structure degradation under radiation is permanent and there is nothing anyone can do to reverse it. Solar panels degrade similarly. Nuclear industry handles solid-fuel rods which are far more radioactive than MSR graphite and complains that it can&#x27;t handle MSR graphite. Just shows that either industry is incompetent or it is not interested in efficient fluid-fuel reactors. Does nuclear industry aims &gt;1000 GW of nuclear capacity? Does nuclear industry care to solve global energy related issues? Efficiency really matters when we have &gt;1000 GW of installed nuclear capacity. If all energy is obtained from nuclear, (12000-16000 GW) even seawater uranium get used up in 40-60 years with inefficient solid-fuel reactors.