Next-generation nuclear reactors may not be safer: French watchdog

[FBaggins]

13. Yes it is (both off... and yours)

I have no need to "smear" them because they don't say what you claim that they say.

All of the information items you are trying to make false assertions about are the statements and judgement of:

Let's see... I corrected three statements

1 - These reactors are so far off that just the prototype of the most advanced model is up to 35 years off
2 - Pursuing any of them is a waste of resources if your priority is to combat climate change
3 - There is no answer for the drawbacks of using sodium

2&3 are easy - since IRSN never said either one of them.

1 - is easy as well... but it assumes that you actually read the report - rather than intentionally misread once line of the summary. They do not say that only one reactor will even have a prototype in the next 35 years. They say exactly what I said... that they expect ASTRID to be completed in the next ten years. They also note that both India and Russia are (as of the time of writing) expected to reach criticality in 2014/2015.

They address China' HTR-PM prototype which should be completed in the next couple years. That's clearly a prototype of a second type of reactor. Their comment isn't that they'll barely be to the prototype phase 35 years from now... it's that the design doesn't fit France's priorities. They want a design that can replace current reactor designs with an improved fuel cycle that can burn their current waste. VHTRs currently show promise for the second part of that, but not the first because it isn't known that they can be large enough to replace GW+scale units.

IOW - They don't say that there won't be prototypes in the next 35 years (they mention nearer-term prototypes for other designs as well)... it's that there's no current plan for a prototype at a large-enough scale to evaluate as a fit for France's priorities. If, for instance, their only priority was to consume their waste plutonium... the HTR-PM in China would be a suitable prototype.

I find it entertaining that for some technologies (e.g., "rock batteries" and commercial wave generation) you take an unsupportedly optimistic reading of the available literature and claim that they're essentially "off-the-shelf" existing technologies and will be ready for commercial-scale applications any day now... and then misread opinions like this one to claim that they say that there's no point in wasting resources because even a pilot is decades away.