Sure is funny how responding to on-demand prompts requires available attention, and attention isn't tracked when assessing the role requirements - just when we're deciding whether or not to fire someone.

There's no point enacting legislation that nobody has the capacity to actually comply with. etc.

"....China turns to nuclear power to try to meet carbon emissions goals....."

No, this is not why. They are not trying to meet any carbon emission goals. They have no goals, other than growing the economy and making it sanction proof.

Most American military believes that China's air quality has gotten so bad that the Chinese government is afraid of creating the first air quality government overthrow.

They are trying to control carbon emissions to keep from being defenestrated.

Where does this crazy idea come from, that the Chinese are fully sold on the climate emergency

You can meet carbon goals for reasons other than the environment.

Where do people get this wishful thinking about China from?

Do you actually get a towel to wring while you plead, for authenticity?

There's no such thing as "americanesium."

"But but I just took the"

nobody cares. Your comment doesn't make sense, and theirs does.

Duh. This is a variant of a typical "Nigerian prince" scam.

They actually made the ship. It's a running nuclear reactor that delivers power in the real world. No Nigerian Prince scam has ever built a working nuclear reactor, little buddy.

The completely unreasonable proposition is a feature to filter out everyone, but the most moronic investors.

Uh. The Chinese government is doing this, and isn't taking investors. Be less paranoid.

What's unreasonable about putting a nuclear reactor on a ship? America's been doing this since 1952. It's 2023.

Mostly I'm on board with your excellent comment. A few things though.

However, on average, despite being transformed into uranium, it's radioactive products are on average shorter lived

It's not clear why you believe this. This is not correct. Uranium decays the same way regardless of how it was created.

But TLDR: it's about the same as traditional reactors.

The LFTR advantage isn't a real thing. It's a youtube myth.

There's no real problems with class 3 PWR in an engineering sense. It's safe, it's reliable, it's well understood. America has had more than half of the world's meltdowns - over 100 - and a reactor has never killed a person here. There's a good argument that nuclear power is not just the safest power technology, but indeed the safest technology of any kind, ever invented.

LFTR claims four advantages:

1. Safer. Horseshit. We've never run one and we have no idea what its safety characteristics are. Back in the 1950s we thought PWR couldn't melt down, too. Lars and Ed are just unimaginative; it's not very difficult to think of serious problems beginning with the infiltration tank cracking. Go ask Cavan; he can go on for ages about unconsidered risks.
2. Cheaper. Again, horseshit. We had built 20 nuclear plants for the price we've spent researching this one. Nuclear plants have been made by individual teenagers. You might as well spend ten billion dollars inventing a cheaper $5 watch. You will never build enough of them to pay the delta off.
3. Small modular scale. ***Horseshit***. Nothing in engineering stops anyone from building PWRs at that scale. The reason we don't do it is economic: the structure of the legal overhead from auditing and validating a plant makes them not cost effective. That's why France and South Korea regularly build smaller plants than anyone else - they have advanced auditing schemes that do not require anywhere near as much pointless overhead.
4. Factory buildable. Well, this would be a nice advantage, except y'know, I've been hearing Lars talk about converting a shipyard for more than 20 years, and work hasn't begun, yet. A factory to build regular PWR could be built much faster than that, including replacing Japan Steelworks, if anyone actually wanted to.

They solved a bunch of problems that aren't the problems the industry faces; they built a device that needs a legal and regulatory regieme that doesn't exist; and now they can't figure out why they can't get customers.

And you think those deep brains are going to solve this?

Probably a bit less, because you can basically burn the thorium completely, where with Uranium you still have like 90% of the fuel remaining when you pull it out as waste.

You seem to be forgetting about breeder reactors.

Neither. You can handle yellowcake with your bare hands safely. They wear gloves to protect the fuel, not the person.

You know your relatives are eating off of uranium plates, right? It's called "fiestaware," and they're eating trace amounts with every forkfull of ceramic dust

It's unfortunate that slashdot has fallen so far that any time someone with no experience in a field doubts something, they say something sanctimonious like "can't tell if trolling or wrong"

that sort of behavior will severely limit you in the long run, tailor

You conveniently overlooked the 20 years of red-tape profiteering and corruption

That's probably because those things aren't real. I also ignored the vampire squad .

It's practically a patented American budget-destroying process

I don't suppose you have a single specific real world example of this moaning you're doing that you're able to give evidence of?

there is no such thing as a gen 4 reactor

the us spun up a regular reactor a couple years ago, and the thing i'm responding to is talking about that .

There are zero good things to say about what the USA did two years ago.

yeah you sound like you know anything at all about this

oh good, someone with a dungeons and dragons name is remembering when the us used to be able to do something it did two years ago

uranium doesn't actually need to be stored safely for more than a couple of weeks; we just do that to mollify the idiots.

thorium's decay chain is so tame that you can drink it.

Nth generation is the result of international agreement. There's no such thing as a 4th generation reactor.

This is the sixth time in 20 years that China has claimed to have created the first 4th generation reactor.

It... looks like Ackerman is trying to get a group of people whose job relies on them understanding what a citation is to effectively say that citing an instance of a hate crime is itself a hate crime... and if they don't he's going to accuse them of hate crimes.

Is that... correct?

It's just unfortunate that he'll use this failed failure as an excuse for why he can't be held to account until we get to Elon or Trump levels of self delusion and everyone can see it for themselves.

How dare a non-profit observe their stated goals and mission in the face of people with lots of money considering themselves integral to Real Business, huh.

Can't wait until people look back and be like "wow how did we miss all the red flags about that guy".

It's a little sad that this is the correct answer, and that people will say it's obvious in retrospect after wasting so many resources.