Global race for transformative molten salt nuclear includes Bill Gates and China

91 thoughts on “Global race for transformative molten salt nuclear includes Bill Gates and China”

1. The cost isn’t really the point.
   Burning more fuel means less waste.
   Less waste means less disposal storage, and shorter storage times.

2. Rather than talking “big”we should go small to employ more STEM students to support the middle class

3. NBF needs a technology and company tracking page. Where we can see what tech is advancing and what companies are overselling their ideas. I did this years back for new RAM technology and recently opened the file and googled all the companies. Only one was left and one other had been bought out by IBM. All the others went bust of just disappeared.

4. Americans can thank the military industrial folks for opting for the deadly fast breeder reactors in the 1960’s because they yielded enriched uranium for weapons, rather than the benign MSR developed & operated successfully at Oakridge labs….now here we are a half century later sucking hind teat behind the rest of the world in the development of these astonishingly safe and inexpensive energy reactors…what an enormous debacle and sham perpetuated on the American public

5. What a lovely handout from the nuclear companies. Saves writers having to think, or to make up anything themselves.

6. It will cost more and it will take longer than estimated to build the first prototype and the first production units. There are always unforeseeable issues. But it does have the potential to make nuclear power safer and cheaper so it should be explored.

7. Design it to be as cheap as possible to build. Calculate the cost of building then optimize it to be even cheaper. Get it so that Capacity plus Generation is cheaper than renewable otherwise forget about it.

8. Popcorn ready … waiting for Scaryjello to respond.

9. NBF needs a technology and company tracking page. Where we can see what tech is advancing and what companies are overselling their ideas. I did this years back for new RAM technology and recently opened the file and googled all the companies. Only one was left and one other had been bought out by IBM. All the others went bust of just disappeared.

10. Americans can thank the military industrial folks for opting for the deadly fast breeder reactors in the 1960’s because they yielded enriched uranium for weapons rather than the benign MSR developed & operated successfully at Oakridge labs….now here we are a half century later sucking hind teat behind the rest of the world in the development of these astonishingly safe and inexpensive energy reactors…what an enormous debacle and sham perpetuated on the American public

11. What a lovely handout from the nuclear companies. Saves writers having to think or to make up anything themselves.

12. It will cost more and it will take longer than estimated to build the first prototype and the first production units. There are always unforeseeable issues. But it does have the potential to make nuclear power safer and cheaper so it should be explored.

13. Design it to be as cheap as possible to build. Calculate the cost of building then optimize it to be even cheaper. Get it so that Capacity plus Generation is cheaper than renewable otherwise forget about it.

14. Popcorn ready … waiting for Scaryjello to respond.

15. ɪ ɢᴇᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ $60 ᴘᴇʀ ʜᴏᴜʀ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ 2 ᴋɪᴅs ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ.I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Check it out here… >>► w­ww.Your70.c­om

16. Especially not true since the weapons plutonium was made in graphite moderated light water cooled reactors with a very short residence time and natural uranium.

17. Let me see: US military went for breeder reactors in the 1960s. Breeder reactors produce enriched uranium. MSR reactor implied to have been developed before these breeder reactors. MSRs said to be safe and inexpensive, without using the words “projected”, “should” and “hoped”. The “rest of the world” alleged to be secretly already using said reactors. I don’t think any single one of these is true.

18. Nice rehash of the last six months. Makes it sounds super exciting , but if you look at the job boards NO army of engineers is being hired for these efforts. also it was strange/sketchywhen TerraPower decided that they were going to diversify with MSR prior to finishing conceptual design on their fast breeder inaccurately referred to as “traveling wave”.

19. Oh the conspiracy! “Astonishing” “hind teat” It’s hard enough to work with clad fuel under Na&K, but at least the major components don’t get contaminated and engineering steels don’t react with Na or K. Steel components look brand new after years of operation in Na. Also you can store and spent fuel underwater “like normal”. Any arguments involving fuel species transmutation, breeding, etc. is spectrum dependent only and not dependent on the reactor type necessarily, thus invalid.

20. ɪ ɢᴇᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ $60 ᴘᴇʀ ʜᴏᴜʀ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ 2 ᴋɪᴅs ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ.I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.Check it out here… >>► w­ww.Your70.c­om”

21. Especially not true since the weapons plutonium was made in graphite moderated light water cooled reactors with a very short residence time and natural uranium.

22. Let me see:US military went for breeder reactors in the 1960s.Breeder reactors produce enriched uranium.MSR reactor implied to have been developed before these breeder reactors.MSRs said to be safe and inexpensive without using the words projected”””” “”””should”””” and “”””hoped””””.The “”””rest of the world”””” alleged to be secretly already using said reactors.I don’t think any single one of these is true.”””

23. Nice rehash of the last six months. Makes it sounds super exciting but if you look at the job boards NO army of engineers is being hired for these efforts. also it was strange/sketchywhen TerraPower decided that they were going to diversify with MSR prior to finishing conceptual design on their fast breeder inaccurately referred to as traveling wave””.”””

24. Oh the conspiracy! Astonishing”” “”””hind teat”””” It’s hard enough to work with clad fuel under Na&K”””” but at least the major components don’t get contaminated and engineering steels don’t react with Na or K. Steel components look brand new after years of operation in Na. Also you can store and spent fuel underwater “”””like normal””””.Any arguments involving fuel species transmutation”” breeding etc. is spectrum dependent only and not dependent on the reactor type necessarily”” thus invalid.”””

25. Seriously though, devil’s advocate is necessary for any meaningful discussion . I’m glad we all understand fission, but it can’t be done fast and loose. Containment containment containment never hurt anybody bro. Good practice. Best practice. Don’t make any cleanup required or you will have egg on your face and stall progress. The development of fission needs to be done with the class and focus and the professionalism of a surgeon. I totally understand the allure of MSRs – i like the simplicity of the neutronics. Before i studied them more deeply due to popularity on this site, i thought they would be operated under vacuum pumps. The best minds that put development effort into MSRs bubble helium through the fluid and process that gas in a dedicated system. If people could simply understand the difficulty in operating that system they would be able to look past the simplicity in the neutronics and see why they (MSRs) have not been adopted. I say all of us with the willingness to work and dedicate the rest of my career to any solid design that gets built so that my effort is not for naught.

26. Good analysis. That is why I studied STEM; it makes sense but breaks down in real life (politics). I can’t think of any state park or outpost that could justify $20M (low) enrichment cost. Maybe Mars – they will need microwave popcorn on Mars – someday when musk/nixoN in a jar is POTUS.

27. It is not difficult to be cheaper than the real cost of wind and solar power. It is more difficult to be cheaper than coal or gas. But I suspect it is possible and I suspect that the regulatory authorities are the biggest problem. If the regulatory authorities transferred their attentions from nuclear and looked at the deplorable state of safety of many large dams, they would be doing everybody a service.

28. Dollars per Watt is more important than cost. And the best dollar per Watt is big, very big, reactors. Though there are instances where small is good…mostly large transport stuff or where there is some risk power could be cut off or anywhere very high latitudes where there may be months without sunshine. If the environment is very important, but isolated, a small footprint reactor might also be good. Hard to come up with a good example though. We usually just set places aside that are special and designate them national parks, state parks, or reserves, or something like that. They really don’t need much electric power. The Moon/Mars might be a good fit. I like solar for the Moon. But Mars…who knows?

29. Cheaper than coal and natural gas when you calculate the costs of pollution. That’s before you calculate the billions dead in a century from global warming. BTW the perma-frost has started melting.

30. Seriously though devil’s advocate is necessary for any meaningful discussion . I’m glad we all understand fission but it can’t be done fast and loose. Containment containment containment never hurt anybody bro. Good practice. Best practice. Don’t make any cleanup required or you will have egg on your face and stall progress. The development of fission needs to be done with the class and focus and the professionalism of a surgeon. I totally understand the allure of MSRs – i like the simplicity of the neutronics. Before i studied them more deeply due to popularity on this site i thought they would be operated under vacuum pumps. The best minds that put development effort into MSRs bubble helium through the fluid and process that gas in a dedicated system. If people could simply understand the difficulty in operating that system they would be able to look past the simplicity in the neutronics and see why they (MSRs) have not been adopted. I say all of us with the willingness to work and dedicate the rest of my career to any solid design that gets built so that my effort is not for naught.

31. Good analysis. That is why I studied STEM; it makes sense but breaks down in real life (politics). I can’t think of any state park or outpost that could justify $20M (low) enrichment cost. Maybe Mars – they will need microwave popcorn on Mars – someday when musk/nixoN in a jar is POTUS.

32. It is not difficult to be cheaper than the real cost of wind and solar power. It is more difficult to be cheaper than coal or gas. But I suspect it is possible and I suspect that the regulatory authorities are the biggest problem.If the regulatory authorities transferred their attentions from nuclear and looked at the deplorable state of safety of many large dams they would be doing everybody a service.

33. Dollars per Watt is more important than cost. And the best dollar per Watt is big very big reactors. Though there are instances where small is good…mostly large transport stuff or where there is some risk power could be cut off or anywhere very high latitudes where there may be months without sunshine. If the environment is very important but isolated a small footprint reactor might also be good. Hard to come up with a good example though. We usually just set places aside that are special and designate them national parks state parks or reserves or something like that. They really don’t need much electric power. The Moon/Mars might be a good fit. I like solar for the Moon. But Mars…who knows?

34. I don’t disagree with any of what you said. As I understand it the three things that MSR reactors bring to the party are the ability to burn almost all of the fuel, the ability to kill the reactor by pulling a plug and they work without a high pressure containment vessel. It makes the old LW reactors seem like antiquated dinosaurs or, if you prefer, white elephants.

35. This sounds great for a gid plant. What if you dope these salts in the ocean? Say when a sip or sub sinks. Or how about when your drone hits the ground and splatters every where? There are going to be lots of different decay products in the salt. Also would a drone or ship be a breeder and would that make its material more toxic?

36. Cheaper than coal and natural gas when you calculate the costs of pollution. That’s before you calculate the billions dead in a century from global warming. BTW the perma-frost has started melting.

37. I don’t disagree with any of what you said. As I understand it the three things that MSR reactors bring to the party are the ability to burn almost all of the fuel the ability to kill the reactor by pulling a plug and they work without a high pressure containment vessel. It makes the old LW reactors seem like antiquated dinosaurs or if you prefer white elephants.

38. This sounds great for a gid plant. What if you dope these salts in the ocean? Say when a sip or sub sinks. Or how about when your drone hits the ground and splatters every where? There are going to be lots of different decay products in the salt. Also would a drone or ship be a breeder and would that make its material more toxic?

39. Moltex Energy’s fuel salt in tubes design does not need to sparge helium through (combined) fuel and coolant salt as do all other MSR designs. I think they basically reached some of the same conclusions as you and found a neat way to design around this problem. w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf “Generic Molten Salt Reactor Challenges: 2.1.Fission products and fission throughout the reactor system. Historically, all molten salt reactor designs have mixed the fuel and coolant as one. All fission products (about a third of the periodic table of elements) therefore circulate through the plant, depositing on surfaces, creating reactivity perturbations, or introducing complex corrosion behaviour. This makes component specification and chemistry management extremely difficult. The fuel/coolant mix is also extremely radioactive with strong gamma emissions at the kW per litre level. As it is circulating through the plant it must be assumed to have the potential to leak. 2.4.Off gassing needs active management. Gaseous fission products are produced continuously and if salt chemistry is not appropriately controlled is a source of volatile radioactive iodine. This require systems to take the gasses out of the fuel salt and manage them. This has been done once in the 1960s but caused problems and will require extensive research before commercialisation. ” “Solutions with Static Fuelled MSRs (Stable Salt Reactors): The Stable Salt Reactor boasts all the advantages of a generic MSR and overcomes the above challenges as follows: 3.1.The engineering complexity of pumping a highly radioactive fuel is avoided The nuclear material is contained in fuel assemblies in the core like all other reactors in operation. Moltex has granted international patents on the use of molten salt fuel in fuel assemblies. Standard industrial pumps and vessels can be used for the low radioactivity separate coolant salt. Fewer parts are required. 3.

40. Lots more people die when it cold than die when it is ht. What convincing evidence do you have that man-made global warming is real and dangerous? As far as I can make out, the evidence does not exist. If you have please let me know. Don’t bother with computer models. They are not evidence!

41. My money is on none of the MSR designs mentioned. Moltex Energy has the most cost competitive design and one that uses parts currently in production. It can be prototyped quickly. Transatomic Power is another very good design, using a non-carbon moderator and advanced reactor container metal. Although many designs can employ Thorium, it is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle, a no-no with respect to proliferation concerns. I doubt that Bill Gates is even aware of this negative.

42. Moltex Energy’s fuel salt in tubes design does not need to sparge helium through (combined) fuel and coolant salt as do all other MSR designs. I think they basically reached some of the same conclusions as you and found a neat way to design around this problem.w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdfGeneric Molten Salt Reactor Challenges:2.1.Fission products and fission throughout the reactor system.Historically all molten salt reactor designs have mixed the fuel and coolant as one. All fission products(about a third of the periodic table of elements) therefore circulate through the plant depositing onsurfaces creating reactivity perturbations” or introducing complex corrosion behaviour. This makescomponent specification and chemistry management extremely difficult. The fuel/coolant mix is alsoextremely radioactive with strong gamma emissions at the kW per litre level. As it is circulatingthrough the plant it must be assumed to have the potential to leak.2.4.Off gassing needs active management.Gaseous fission products are produced continuously and if salt chemistry is not appropriatelycontrolled is a source of volatile radioactive iodine. This require systems to take the gasses out of thefuel salt and manage them. This has been done once in the 1960s but caused problems and will requireextensive research before commercialisation. “”””””Solutions with Static Fuelled MSRs (Stable Salt Reactors):The Stable Salt Reactor boasts all the advantages of a generic MSR and overcomes the abovechallenges as follows:3.1.The engineering complexity of pumping a highly radioactive fuel is avoidedThe nuclear material is contained in fuel assemblies in the core like all other reactors in operation.Moltex has granted international patents on the use of molten salt fuel in fuel assemblies. Standardindustrial pumps and vessels can be used for the low radioactivity separate coolant salt. F”

43. Lots more people die when it cold than die when it is ht. What convincing evidence do you have that man-made global warming is real and dangerous? As far as I can make out the evidence does not exist. If you have please let me know. Don’t bother with computer models. They are not evidence!

44. My money is on none of the MSR designs mentioned. Moltex Energy has the most cost competitive design and one that uses parts currently in production. It can be prototyped quickly. Transatomic Power is another very good design using a non-carbon moderator and advanced reactor container metal. Although many designs can employ Thorium it is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle a no-no with respect to proliferation concerns. I doubt that Bill Gates is even aware of this negative.

45. Is burning more of the fuel really a big deal? If, as the numbers seem to repeatedly say, the fuel cost of a modern nuke is about 0.5 cents/kWh, with a total cost of 5 to 7 cents. Then cutting fuel costs by a factor of 50%, or 95%, or even 100%, just isn’t going to move the needle compared to construction and manning costs. It’s like redesigning a car to minimise the amount of oil changed at each service. You are wasting effort that could go towards something that actually matters.

46. So you actually believe that transatomic’s zirc hydride moderator structure is going to hold up as well as graphite? Hmm. Nobody else does.

47. Wrote a reply, but it seems to have disappeared. Moltex Energy also think that off gassing and pumping highly radioactive salt are design challenges that haven’t been convincingly addressed by other MSR designs. They have put their fuel salt in tubes, where it moves only via convection, avoiding these issues: w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf

48. Is burning more of the fuel really a big deal? If as the numbers seem to repeatedly say the fuel cost of a modern nuke is about 0.5 cents/kWh with a total cost of 5 to 7 cents. Then cutting fuel costs by a factor of 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or even 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} just isn’t going to move the needle compared to construction and manning costs.It’s like redesigning a car to minimise the amount of oil changed at each service. You are wasting effort that could go towards something that actually matters.

49. So you actually believe that transatomic’s zirc hydride moderator structure is going to hold up as well as graphite? Hmm. Nobody else does.

50. Wrote a reply but it seems to have disappeared. Moltex Energy also think that off gassing and pumping highly radioactive salt are design challenges that haven’t been convincingly addressed by other MSR designs. They have put their fuel salt in tubes where it moves only via convection avoiding these issues:w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf”

51. As Gaucho says, for the first time that we know of, permafrost in parts of Siberia and Canada did not refreeze last winter as usual. The ice has been giving up multi-thousand year old prizes like Otzi the Ice Man, and the Siberian foal found recently. As a New Zealander, you should be aware that our largest glacier is turning into a lake, after surviving thousands of years of climate variation. The researchers on Antarctic glaciers claim they’re melting from underneath, in both West and East Antarctica, at an increasing rate. If that’s not dangerous, with the potential to drown about half the world’s major cities, what is ?

52. Plus 1

53. I like Moltex as well, because it has pruned off most of the novelty of molten salts, to get a design as near as possible to current water- or sodium-cooled reactors. To do so, they’ve abandoned some popular objectives, like breeding, and dodged problems like the need for on-line processing and for lithium enrichment. As Scaryjello says, though, Transatomic’s claims for zirconium hydride look dodgy, and they don’t seem to have put nearly as much work into corrosion control as Moltex has. Transatomic used to claim they’d use fissile a ‘..Thorium… is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle’ Quite the opposite. Thorium 232 has to absorb seven neutrons before it becomes plutonium 239, and at several stages along the way, it’s much more likely to fission than to fatten up.

54. As Gaucho says for the first time that we know of permafrost in parts of Siberia and Canada did not refreeze last winter as usual. The ice has been giving up multi-thousand year old prizes like Otzi the Ice Man and the Siberian foal found recently. As a New Zealander you should be aware that our largest glacier is turning into a lake after surviving thousands of years of climate variation. The researchers on Antarctic glaciers claim they’re melting from underneath in both West and East Antarctica at an increasing rate. If that’s not dangerous with the potential to drown about half the world’s major cities what is ?

55. Plus 1

56. I like Moltex as well because it has pruned off most of the novelty of molten salts to get a design as near as possible to current water- or sodium-cooled reactors. To do so they’ve abandoned some popular objectives like breeding and dodged problems like the need for on-line processing and for lithium enrichment. As Scaryjello says though Transatomic’s claims for zirconium hydride look dodgy and they don’t seem to have put nearly as much work into corrosion control as Moltex has. Transatomic used to claim they’d use fissile a ‘..Thorium… is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle’ Quite the opposite. Thorium 232 has to absorb seven neutrons before it becomes plutonium 239 and at several stages along the way it’s much more likely to fission than to fatten up.

57. Clearly the stumbling block for nuclear now is not fuel cost but build cost ( operational cost is probably a lot higher than it need be, as well.) The likes of Terrestrial, Thorcon and Moltex are primarily going for low build cost, which shouldn’t be hard with no need for a high pressure reactor vessel, or a massive containment – no water, so no steam in the nuclear island. Lower fuel use, and better efficiency from higher operating temperatures, is just a bonus. The two Ts get around corrosion licencing concerns by just throwing out the whole fuel circuit every few years, Moltex by using replaceable fuel tubes, same as a LWR. More complicated arrangements like the French fast neutron MSR, or the LFTR, might have better fuel usage, but will only be built after a lot more research. Which isn’t being done.

58. Clearly the stumbling block for nuclear now is not fuel cost but build cost ( operational cost is probably a lot higher than it need be as well.) The likes of Terrestrial Thorcon and Moltex are primarily going for low build cost which shouldn’t be hard with no need for a high pressure reactor vessel or a massive containment – no water so no steam in the nuclear island. Lower fuel use and better efficiency from higher operating temperatures is just a bonus. The two Ts get around corrosion licencing concerns by just throwing out the whole fuel circuit every few years Moltex by using replaceable fuel tubes same as a LWR. More complicated arrangements like the French fast neutron MSR or the LFTR might have better fuel usage but will only be built after a lot more research. Which isn’t being done.

59. meanwhile, plant Vogel is costing GA more than $50 billion. Could have invented a whole new source of nuclear power for the cost of that stupid thing.

60. meanwhile plant Vogel is costing GA more than $50 billion. Could have invented a whole new source of nuclear power for the cost of that stupid thing.

61. meanwhile, plant Vogel is costing GA more than $50 billion. Could have invented a whole new source of nuclear power for the cost of that stupid thing.

62. meanwhile plant Vogel is costing GA more than $50 billion. Could have invented a whole new source of nuclear power for the cost of that stupid thing.

63. meanwhile, plant Vogel is costing GA more than $50 billion. Could have invented a whole new source of nuclear power for the cost of that stupid thing.

64. Clearly the stumbling block for nuclear now is not fuel cost but build cost ( operational cost is probably a lot higher than it need be, as well.) The likes of Terrestrial, Thorcon and Moltex are primarily going for low build cost, which shouldn’t be hard with no need for a high pressure reactor vessel, or a massive containment – no water, so no steam in the nuclear island. Lower fuel use, and better efficiency from higher operating temperatures, is just a bonus. The two Ts get around corrosion licencing concerns by just throwing out the whole fuel circuit every few years, Moltex by using replaceable fuel tubes, same as a LWR.
    More complicated arrangements like the French fast neutron MSR, or the LFTR, might have better fuel usage, but will only be built after a lot more research. Which isn’t being done.

65. As Gaucho says, for the first time that we know of, permafrost in parts of Siberia and Canada did not refreeze last winter as usual. The ice has been giving up multi-thousand year old prizes like Otzi the Ice Man, and the Siberian foal found recently. As a New Zealander, you should be aware that our largest glacier is turning into a lake, after surviving thousands of years of climate variation.
    The researchers on Antarctic glaciers claim they’re melting from underneath, in both West and East Antarctica, at an increasing rate. If that’s not dangerous, with the potential to drown about half the world’s major cities, what is ?

66. Plus 1

67. I like Moltex as well, because it has pruned off most of the novelty of molten salts, to get a design as near as possible to current water- or sodium-cooled reactors. To do so, they’ve abandoned some popular objectives, like breeding, and dodged problems like the need for on-line processing and for lithium enrichment.
    As Scaryjello says, though, Transatomic’s claims for zirconium hydride look dodgy, and they don’t seem to have put nearly as much work into corrosion control as Moltex has. Transatomic used to claim they’d use fissile a
    ‘..Thorium… is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle’ Quite the opposite. Thorium 232 has to absorb seven neutrons before it becomes plutonium 239, and at several stages along the way, it’s much more likely to fission than to fatten up.

68. Is burning more of the fuel really a big deal?

    If, as the numbers seem to repeatedly say, the fuel cost of a modern nuke is about 0.5 cents/kWh, with a total cost of 5 to 7 cents. Then cutting fuel costs by a factor of 50%, or 95%, or even 100%, just isn’t going to move the needle compared to construction and manning costs.

    It’s like redesigning a car to minimise the amount of oil changed at each service. You are wasting effort that could go towards something that actually matters.

69. So you actually believe that transatomic’s zirc hydride moderator structure is going to hold up as well as graphite? Hmm. Nobody else does.

70. Wrote a reply, but it seems to have disappeared. Moltex Energy also think that off gassing and pumping highly radioactive salt are design challenges that haven’t been convincingly addressed by other MSR designs. They have put their fuel salt in tubes, where it moves only via convection, avoiding these issues:

    w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf

71. Moltex Energy’s fuel salt in tubes design does not need to sparge helium through (combined) fuel and coolant salt as do all other MSR designs. I think they basically reached some of the same conclusions as you and found a neat way to design around this problem.

    w­ww.moltexenergy.c­om/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf

    “Generic Molten Salt Reactor Challenges:
    2.1.Fission products and fission throughout the reactor system.
    Historically, all molten salt reactor designs have mixed the fuel and coolant as one. All fission products
    (about a third of the periodic table of elements) therefore circulate through the plant, depositing on
    surfaces, creating reactivity perturbations, or introducing complex corrosion behaviour. This makes
    component specification and chemistry management extremely difficult. The fuel/coolant mix is also
    extremely radioactive with strong gamma emissions at the kW per litre level. As it is circulating
    through the plant it must be assumed to have the potential to leak.

    2.4.Off gassing needs active management.
    Gaseous fission products are produced continuously and if salt chemistry is not appropriately
    controlled is a source of volatile radioactive iodine. This require systems to take the gasses out of the
    fuel salt and manage them. This has been done once in the 1960s but caused problems and will require
    extensive research before commercialisation. ”

    “Solutions with Static Fuelled MSRs (Stable Salt Reactors):
    The Stable Salt Reactor boasts all the advantages of a generic MSR and overcomes the above
    challenges as follows:

    3.1.The engineering complexity of pumping a highly radioactive fuel is avoided
    The nuclear material is contained in fuel assemblies in the core like all other reactors in operation.
    Moltex has granted international patents on the use of molten salt fuel in fuel assemblies. Standard
    industrial pumps and vessels can be used for the low radioactivity separate coolant salt. Fewer parts
    are required.

    3.4.Off gassing is passive
    Because caesium and iodine gas are not emitted in significant quantities, non-return gas release vents
    can be used at the top of the fuel assemblies, so no pressure build up occurs in the fuel tube. The
    gases collect first in the upper plenum of the fuel tubes, then in the reactor gas containment and are
    only released to atmosphere in a controlled manner through operation of the containment airlocks.
    This mechanism ensures that highly radioactive decay products of xenon are retained in the fuel tubes
    and not released to atmosphere. “

72. Lots more people die when it cold than die when it is ht. What convincing evidence do you have that man-made global warming is real and dangerous? As far as I can make out, the evidence does not exist. If you have please let me know. Don’t bother with computer models. They are not evidence!

73. My money is on none of the MSR designs mentioned. Moltex Energy has the most cost competitive design and one that uses parts currently in production. It can be prototyped quickly. Transatomic Power is another very good design, using a non-carbon moderator and advanced reactor container metal. Although many designs can employ Thorium, it is avoided because it produces plutonium during its burn cycle, a no-no with respect to proliferation concerns. I doubt that Bill Gates is even aware of this negative.

74. I don’t disagree with any of what you said. As I understand it the three things that MSR reactors bring to the party are the ability to burn almost all of the fuel, the ability to kill the reactor by pulling a plug and they work without a high pressure containment vessel. It makes the old LW reactors seem like antiquated dinosaurs or, if you prefer, white elephants.

75. This sounds great for a gid plant. What if you dope these salts in the ocean? Say when a sip or sub sinks. Or how about when your drone hits the ground and splatters every where? There are going to be lots of different decay products in the salt. Also would a drone or ship be a breeder and would that make its material more toxic?

76. Cheaper than coal and natural gas when you calculate the costs of pollution. That’s before you calculate the billions dead in a century from global warming. BTW the perma-frost has started melting.

77. Seriously though, devil’s advocate is necessary for any meaningful discussion . I’m glad we all understand fission, but it can’t be done fast and loose. Containment containment containment never hurt anybody bro. Good practice. Best practice. Don’t make any cleanup required or you will have egg on your face and stall progress. The development of fission needs to be done with the class and focus and the professionalism of a surgeon. I totally understand the allure of MSRs – i like the simplicity of the neutronics. Before i studied them more deeply due to popularity on this site, i thought they would be operated under vacuum pumps. The best minds that put development effort into MSRs bubble helium through the fluid and process that gas in a dedicated system. If people could simply understand the difficulty in operating that system they would be able to look past the simplicity in the neutronics and see why they (MSRs) have not been adopted. I say all of us with the willingness to work and dedicate the rest of my career to any solid design that gets built so that my effort is not for naught.

78. Good analysis. That is why I studied STEM; it makes sense but breaks down in real life (politics).

    I can’t think of any state park or outpost that could justify $20M (low) enrichment cost. Maybe Mars – they will need microwave popcorn on Mars – someday when musk/nixoN in a jar is POTUS.

79. It is not difficult to be cheaper than the real cost of wind and solar power. It is more difficult to be cheaper than coal or gas. But I suspect it is possible and I suspect that the regulatory authorities are the biggest problem.

    If the regulatory authorities transferred their attentions from nuclear and looked at the deplorable state of safety of many large dams, they would be doing everybody a service.

80. Dollars per Watt is more important than cost. And the best dollar per Watt is big, very big, reactors. Though there are instances where small is good…mostly large transport stuff or where there is some risk power could be cut off or anywhere very high latitudes where there may be months without sunshine. If the environment is very important, but isolated, a small footprint reactor might also be good. Hard to come up with a good example though. We usually just set places aside that are special and designate them national parks, state parks, or reserves, or something like that. They really don’t need much electric power. The Moon/Mars might be a good fit. I like solar for the Moon. But Mars…who knows?

81. ɪ ɢᴇᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ $60 ᴘᴇʀ ʜᴏᴜʀ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ 2 ᴋɪᴅs ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ.I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Check it out here… >>► w­ww.Your70.c­om

82. Especially not true since the weapons plutonium was made in graphite moderated light water cooled reactors with a very short residence time and natural uranium.

83. Let me see:
    US military went for breeder reactors in the 1960s.
    Breeder reactors produce enriched uranium.
    MSR reactor implied to have been developed before these breeder reactors.
    MSRs said to be safe and inexpensive, without using the words “projected”, “should” and “hoped”.
    The “rest of the world” alleged to be secretly already using said reactors.

    I don’t think any single one of these is true.

84. Nice rehash of the last six months. Makes it sounds super exciting , but if you look at the job boards NO army of engineers is being hired for these efforts. also it was strange/sketchywhen TerraPower decided that they were going to diversify with MSR prior to finishing conceptual design on their fast breeder inaccurately referred to as “traveling wave”.

85. Oh the conspiracy!

    “Astonishing”

    “hind teat”

    It’s hard enough to work with clad fuel under Na&K, but at least the major components don’t get contaminated and engineering steels don’t react with Na or K. Steel components look brand new after years of operation in Na. Also you can store and spent fuel underwater “like normal”.

    Any arguments involving fuel species transmutation, breeding, etc. is spectrum dependent only and not dependent on the reactor type necessarily, thus invalid.

86. NBF needs a technology and company tracking page. Where we can see what tech is advancing and what companies are overselling their ideas. I did this years back for new RAM technology and recently opened the file and googled all the companies. Only one was left and one other had been bought out by IBM. All the others went bust of just disappeared.

87. What a lovely handout from the nuclear companies. Saves writers having to think, or to make up anything themselves.

88. Americans can thank the military industrial folks for opting for the deadly fast breeder reactors in the 1960’s because they yielded enriched uranium for weapons, rather than the benign MSR developed & operated successfully at Oakridge labs….now here we are a half century later sucking hind teat behind the rest of the world in the development of these astonishingly safe and inexpensive energy reactors…what an enormous debacle and sham perpetuated on the American public

89. It will cost more and it will take longer than estimated to build the first prototype and the first production units. There are always unforeseeable issues. But it does have the potential to make nuclear power safer and cheaper so it should be explored.

90. Design it to be as cheap as possible to build. Calculate the cost of building then optimize it to be even cheaper. Get it so that Capacity plus Generation is cheaper than renewable otherwise forget about it.

91. Popcorn ready … waiting for Scaryjello to respond.

Comments are closed.