I took a nuclear engineering class in 1975. In essence we discussed three reactor design ideas:
1. Water, pressurized or otherwise.
2. Gas-cooled.
3. Molten-salt.
The big problem with molten salt was that you sent it through a whole lot of pipes. Hence, the physical plant that would get radioactive was much bigger than just the core of a water-based reactor. Also, you just had to deal with a whole lot of radioactive sludge.
A huge advantage was that the thing couldn't lose coolant and melt down; a catastrophic failure would amount to the molten salt sinking into the earth below.
It seemed at the time that if any major change would be made, it would be to HTGRs -- high-temperature gas reactors. But it also seemed as if the true "best" idea was molten-salt.
1. Water, pressurized or otherwise. 2. Gas-cooled. 3. Molten-salt.
The big problem with molten salt was that you sent it through a whole lot of pipes. Hence, the physical plant that would get radioactive was much bigger than just the core of a water-based reactor. Also, you just had to deal with a whole lot of radioactive sludge.
A huge advantage was that the thing couldn't lose coolant and melt down; a catastrophic failure would amount to the molten salt sinking into the earth below.
It seemed at the time that if any major change would be made, it would be to HTGRs -- high-temperature gas reactors. But it also seemed as if the true "best" idea was molten-salt.