They are not using liquid sodium. With a little reading I found they usually use nitrate salts for these purposes. Those are strong oxidizing agents, so one wouldn't want it to come into contact with a combustible fuel, but the technology is tried tested and true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://large.stanford.edu/cour...
https://www.solarthermalworld....

I don't see any mention of elemental hydrogen in the article, did I miss it? Or do you have another source?
and
Are you saying hydrogen explodes when mixed with water? That would require a whole new explanation for how a Hoffman's apparatus doesn't explode...

Either way, we have good storage mechanisms for hydrogen, I have some in my classroom right now.
Sounds to me like you are looking for anything that might be hazardous and using it to claim the technology is not feasible. If we took that approach we would have no technology at all.

I do this demo for my students every year. It uses elemental sodium.
But, if you RTFA you will find this proposed plant is using sodium salts. Sodium salts are stable. Try it yourself with some table salt at home, just add water, or do some casual reading about the salt in the ocean, and you will find sodium salts and water mixing are not so scary.

Elemental sodium would indeed be a terrible idea, it has a relatively low heat capacity, low melting point and low enthalpy of solidification all of which mean it would not serve purpose very well for this idea, plus it is highly reactive so no-one would even consider such a silly idea.

I am in favour of nuclear, I was just saying in a cost comparison we should consider long term handling of the waste.
We should also consider environmental costs of solar and wind, like the environmental costs of mining neodymium for all the wind turbines.

I do think we will have better technology options for dealing with the nuclear waste in the future, recycling the waste to run new small scale nuclear power plants, so the cost of dealing with the waste may eventually be negative.
But if we are basing a cost analysis on current technology, and given that we have no current long term nuclear waste storage and thus have to build something to accomplish this purpose, then the current cost of nuclear waste is >0$.

I meant factor climate change into the costs for coal and gas that plague911 quoted.
Factor the costs of nuclear waste into nuclear.
Seems only fair if you want to factor the costs of storage into solar and wind.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.

What if you factor in the costs of dealing with nuclear waste and the costs of climate change?

Salt is not explosive when mixed with water. You can test this yourself at home.

I got some water in my salt shaker, strangely there was no boom. They actually mixed really well.
I have also heard about this place called 'the ocean', where apparently there is a great deal of sodium salts mixed with water, but perhaps you want to stay clear of such places...

This is one of the questions LIGO is trying to answer.
They are also trying to investigate the interior of neutron stars to see if there are quark layers or perhaps a strange quark core.
The current director of LIGO Hanford (Michael Landry) is a specialist in strange quarks, having had the chance to chat with him (super nice guy btw), he is very excited to be seeking the answers to these very questions.

Show me the model(s) that you agree with that correctly predict the warming we have seen.

Here is some more that disagree with you
https://www.nature.com/article...
Summary here: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
in case Nature is pay walled for you, I was assuming you have access though since you cited a nature study earlier. I don't imagine you will like the guardian as a source, let me know if you want me to try to track down a copy of the nature article for you.

Here is another one that disagrees with you.
https://climategraphs.wordpres...

The author of that website is rather questionable.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
He is a signatory of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which declares that God wouldn't let humans mess up the climate because God is in control of it.
And he has been caught doing an awful lot of cherry picking for example this article shows how Spencer tested several models and only picked the ones that fit his story, and then this article debunks some of the bunk Spencer came up with: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

He has a Masters of Science in the field of Natural Resources to go with his pHD in sociology.
Seems like the right person to comment on how humans groups (like those on facebook) are interacting with climate data.
He specifically studies the US environmental movement, which this article is certainly about.
Strawman arguments based on ad hominem attacks on specific experts doesn't make your position any stronger.

first hit on a quick search found your answer: https://www.iflscience.com/env...
It is called committed warming because they CO2 cycle (think water cycle, but for CO2) is hundreds of thousands of years long, so the carbon we have emitted so far will continue to cause imbalance for a very long time. Emitting a little less this year (but still more then we emitted in 1990) is not going to magically stop AGW.

I am not saying every detail is understood, that is not what science does and is not how it works, expecting that just means you don't know anything about science.
But there are testable predictions and most have been confirmed. The cases where the predictions were not confirmed help us build better models, so now our models are more accurate then ever.

no, actually it works this way:

Here is the right's idea of the scientific method

Experts are all elites who are out of touch with the real world.
Everyday 'mericans know more then these hoity toity elites.
Find the 'mericans who agree with you and form a troll party.
Bombard the internet with inane parroted nonsense trying (in vane) to poke holes in solid research
Claim that your opinion is just as valid as thousands of research papers that disagree with you because we have to tell both sides of the story.

That is a commentary piece in nature, not a study.
And NASA disagrees with you: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...