Conventional nuke plants don't consume a ton of water for cooling. I believe (definitely not an expert) that any water used for cooling is kept in a closed loop system. The vast majority of the water consumed by a nuclear plant (or any thermal power plant) is used by being converted to steam, which is then used to spin a turbine (though some percentage of that water can also be reused by condensing it in cooling towers, as described in the article).

The system described in the article punts the "how do we use the heat this system outputs" to some other facility/plant. It could use the heat directly in a variety of industrial processes, or it could be used to boil water for a steam turbine.

This is correct. See my comment downthread about the Rankine cycle. As well as a source of heat, for efficient electricity generation you also need a source of "coolth".

The reactor is helium cooled. Their own collateral (https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/ ; annoying scrolljacking) shows shipping the heat to e.g. industrial process use or electricity generation - but for generation, you'll need a standard steam turbine + condenser setup. Which consumes water for cooling the condenser.

Also from their web page:

> FCM® fuel cannot be re-processed using currently available reprocessing schemes.

They list this as a nonproliferation benefit, but it has downsides.

I think it's fair to say a nuclear power plant "uses" the water that it discharges its waste heat into as it flows out into a river or large body of water. If it didn't use that water, it would have to dump its heat somewhere else.

> it discharges its waste heat into as it flows out into a river or large body of water

They don't all work that way.

> Article says this new reactor is helium cooled

So it's non-functional without a methane industry tuen. Got it.

Water or salt or sodium sounds more sustainable.