Why molten salt reactors are not being developed in the U.S., in two words:

[wtmusic]

Big Uranium.

I had an interesting email exchange with a physicist who contributed on a nuclear blog lately about the challenges facing molten salt reactor research. This is a safe, proven nuclear technology which shows much promise but has been thwarted, somewhat mysteriously, for over forty years. I've chased down the idea that the fossil fuel industry was lobbying against it, but not found much evidence to support that theory. Then, during a tour of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station a couple of years ago, I learned that the uranium fuel assemblies which go into pressurized water reactors cost $14 million each. This lead to a nagging suspicion that the uranium industry might be shutting down MSR research - after all, with cheap and plentiful thorium molten-salt reactors can run almost indefinitely without any fuel assemblies.

My suspicions have been validated by an email I received from the blogger, who will go unnamed. The bulk of the email:

We have discussed the prospect MSR development here in the U.S. with several key players from the DoE and the NRC - very high ups, including the Asst. Sec'y under Dr. Chu who just left. The answer from the former Asst. Sec'y of Energy was, "I personally am in favor of modular reactors and MSRs in particular. Unfortunately, Congress and the legislative process is so tainted, MSRs have very little chance of being developed here in the U.S. and will very likely be developed abroad."

We have approached over 70 Members of Congress (House and Senate; Democrat and Republican) and have gotten exactly zero results. I then resorted to the more nefarious route: I have spoken directly with lobbying firms as well as Republican and Democrat operatives. I now have the dollar figures needed to buy the votes in the respective House and Senate Energy subcommittees. This is despicable, but apparently requisite. At least I have a goal in terms of the capital I am currently in the process of raising (about $14.7million, total). Even with this in hand, I am still skeptical, since "Big Uranium" is quite firmly entrenched and unwilling to accommodate.

It's the reason why my colleagues have already formed a for-profit entity outside the U.S. with the explicit intention of building the world's first assembly-line-ready MSR.

Sadly, I wish I had better news for you.

This is our country - no matter who is POTUS, no matter how serious is the threat of climate change, it's all about guarding monopolies. Why Keystone XL will be approved after the Mayflower spill news dies down, and why Chinese and Indian tech will dominate molten salt research.

[bananas]

1. I'm glad to hear they've gotten "exactly zero results" .

"We have approached over 70 Members of Congress (House and Senate; Democrat and Republican) and have gotten exactly zero results."

[bananas]

2. So now he's trying to buy Congress - after it's been rejected on technical and economic grounds.

All he needs is $14.7 million dollars.
How long before he starts asking suckers for donations?

[kristopher]

3. I suppose MIT is in on the conspiracy?

Their report concluded that the balance of benefits offered by MSR's are not substantial enough to outweigh the negatives associated with the technology.

The thorium hype is nothing more than another bunch of money grubbers looking for some suckers.

[cprise]

4. I don't know what to say

except that you seem to have stumbled upon a realization that pro-renewables advocates like me often have--but from the other way round.

The horrible thing is all these large oligarch/plutocrat interests are cross-invested to a large extent; they are ultimately Wall St. entities of the kind that seek monopoly rents above all else. That is the ultimate downside of a "service economy" mindset.

If you're ever going to cut through the corruption exemplified by players like Big Uranium, you have to go after their underlying business model. The only way I can see to do this (short of overthrowing the socio-economic order) is to undercut the monopoly service with competitively manufactured commodity products. The other "ducks" don't count unless this one is lined-up and looking pretty.

[wtmusic]

7. On this we agree, cprise.

The problem is that research into MSRs requires significantly more resources than making efficiency tweaks in wind turbines or PV cells.

The promise of MSRs is exactly what makes them toxic to the status quo. IMO Big Uranium doesn't fight renewable subsidies because they'll never be a significant player in the energy market.

[eShirl]

5. Is it just me or does $15million seem unbelieveably low for bribing 70 members of Congress?

I know many of them are just cheap whores, but really. -sniff-

[wtmusic]

6. It's really just the members of the Energy subcommittees. nt

[snagglepuss]

8. .

[madokie]

9. If this is such a given then why is it still in a development state after all these years

Methinks there is a lot more to this story than the government is holding back

[kristopher]

10. It is a conspiracy theory similar to "GM is hiding the 100MPG carburetor"

It is a new chorus in an old song. They used to say it was being suppressed because the government couldn't use it to get feedstock for nuclear weapons (false of course) but since that has become more absurd every passing day, they've come up with a new twist.

Listen to Issa on Sunday's Meet the Press and you'll hear the same type of shape shifting on an accelerated basis.

[madokie]

11. Without a doubt

It gets more absurd with each passing faux reason