Flibe Energy has $2.6 million for molten salt nuclear research

Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy described the central role that fluorination plays in the handling of fission products in molten-salt reactors. New fluorination technology may resolve previous challenges, at the 4th MSR Workshop at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, on October 4, 2018.

U.S. Department of Energy is funding new research into liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) technology. LFTRs generate nuclear power with thorium carried in a solution of molten fluoride salts, a technology advocates say is safer and more efficient than conventional uranium reactors. Flibe Energy will receive $2.1 million from DOE and $525,500 from other sources to study the use of nitrogen trifluoride to remove uranium from the nuclear fuel solution.

In a conventional solid-fueled reactors, the consumption of fuel, and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling rather than the buildup of fission products.

Long-term Operation of molten-salt reactors

In a fluid-fueled molten-salt reactor, the potential exists to refuel the reactor during operation by adding fissile material to the fuel salt. The cladding degradation issue does not apply. Molten-salt reactors that use fluoride salts as the chemical medium are impervious to radiation damage in the fuel itself, due to its ionically-bonded nature. This leaves fission product buildup as the only real threat to the long-term operation of the reactor.

Reductive extraction of fission products increasingly appears to be the most attractive suggested way to manage the long-term buildup of fission products in the fuel salt, especially if lithium metal is used as the reductant. Because lithium is one of the constituents of the FLiBe salt that makes up the solvent into which nuclear fuel is dissolved in the reactor, its addition over time will not be detrimental and more easily managed than a foreign species such as cerium. The metallic lithium can be alloyed with metallic bismuth to carefully manage lithium’s introduction into the fuel salt; bismuth is immiscible with the fluoride fuel salts that are generally favored for molten-salt reactors.

Flibe Energy proposes to evaluate is the use of a fluorinating/oxidizing agent to convert uranium, typically UF4 found in a liquid fluoride reactor to its gaseous state UF6. Depending on the fluorination/oxidizing agent and temperature, other actinides will also be fluorinated and/or oxidized from a trivalent or tetravalent state. Neptunium and plutonium do form volatile hexafluorides but plutonium hexafluoride is thermodynamically unstable. If fluorination could be undertaken prior to an attempt at reductive extraction, the uranium, neptunium, many of the transition metals, and non-metals present in the salt could be largely removed and reductive extraction could be employed much more productively to remove fission products.

The appeal of fluorination as a technique for the removal of uranium from fluoride fuel salt has been noted for many years and fluorination formed an integral part of most of the chemical processing flowsheets that were developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Molten-Salt Reactor Program from 1957 to 1976. Fluorinators were envisioned at a variety of locations in the chemical processing, universally under the assumption that they would remove uranium from the fuel salt. Despite the prevalence of fluorination as an envisioned chemical processing technique, the actual amount of development that was undertaken on continuous fluorination was surprisingly small.

Fluorination to remove uranium from molten salt fuel

Batch fluorination was utilized to remove uranium from the fuel salt of the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in 1968, but this was done in the drain tank of the reactor vessel and led to the introduction of a significant amount of corrosion products. Repeated fluorination of the MSRE fuel salt in this manner would have undoubtedly led to the structural failure of the drain tank due to corrosion.

But the aggressiveness of F2 led to many practical engineering challenges in the development of a continuous fluorination system. To protect the fluorinator from F2 attack, ORNL engineers envisioned using an extensive interior cooling system to freeze a layer of salt on the fluorination column’s inner surface. A fuel salt containing fresh fission products has considerable internal heat generation that can be opposed by a cooling system to form a frozen wall on the interior surface of a fluorination column. But a chemically-similar simulant salt, such as LiF-BeF2-UF4, where fission products are replaced with stable isotopes, has no such internal heat generation term. It was necessary to simultaneously heat the salt internally, to simulate the heating effect of fission product decay, while cooling the wall of the fluorinator to generate the frozen wall. Thus testing the frozen wall of the fluorinator under these conditions was very difficult. This was never satisfactorily resolved during the Molten-Salt Reactor Project.

In the years since the MSRE concluded in 1976, alternative fluorination agents have been advanced for consideration. Most notable among these is NF3. NF3 has been considered for rocket propulsion and is extensively used in the electronics industry to clean and etch microelectronic silica chips. It is minimally hazardous and not corrosive at temperatures below 70C and is likely less corrosive than other fluorinating agents. It is not known to react with moisture, is thermally stable at room temperature, and has been demonstrated by PNNL to be an effective, thermally tunable fluorination/oxidation agent for spent nuclear fuel constituents. By controlling the treatment temperature, NF3 will selectively fluorinate/oxidize spent nuclear fuel constituents. The different temperature sensitivities and NF3 concentration effects for the fluorination/oxidation of the different constituents potentially provides mechanisms to effect separations of the volatile fluorides.

The hazard level and chemical reactivity attributes potentially make NF3 a very attractive fluorinating/oxidizing agent for managing the composition of the fuel salt in a liquid-fluoride reactor where uranium is the dominant or even exclusive fissile material. Fluorination/oxidation of the fuel salt with NF3 would produce UF6 and remove uranium from the salt. Reductive extraction could then be employed to remove non-volatile fission and activation products from the salt. Hydrogen could be used to reduce UF6 back to UF4 and reconstitute the salt for return to the reactor.

114 thoughts on “Flibe Energy has $2.6 million for molten salt nuclear research”

  1. It is complicated but so are any scheme for dealing with nuclear waste. Even once thru still has a nuclear waste disposal process eventually. Nuclear power will be forever complicated especially if we ever complete the womb to tomb process. So you successfully implement your fluoridation scheme. Everything is working and then one day something goes wrong. How do you fix it? Everything is hot. Got to let it cool down a bit. Then you have to monitor the exposure of the guys who have to fix it. They can only work for a very limited period of time each day. The more complicated the scheme the longer it will take to find and fix the problem.

  2. You see how ridiculously complicated these fluorination schemes are, right? ….molten lithium/bismuth in contact with molten salt with megawatts of decay heat actually in the gases coming out of the fluid. Good, spend the money on the basic science. I just don’t see how it will ever be competitive compared to barely competitive LWRs that don’t bother to reprocess the spent fuel, let alone fluoridate and de-fluoridate it on site.

  3. It is complicated but so are any scheme for dealing with nuclear waste. Even once thru still has a nuclear waste disposal process eventually. Nuclear power will be forever complicated especially if we ever complete the womb to tomb process. So you successfully implement your fluoridation scheme. Everything is working and then one day something goes wrong. How do you fix it? Everything is hot. Got to let it cool down a bit. Then you have to monitor the exposure of the guys who have to fix it. They can only work for a very limited period of time each day. The more complicated the scheme the longer it will take to find and fix the problem.

  4. You see how ridiculously complicated these fluorination schemes are right? ….molten lithium/bismuth in contact with molten salt with megawatts of decay heat actually in the gases coming out of the fluid.Good spend the money on the basic science. I just don’t see how it will ever be competitive compared to barely competitive LWRs that don’t bother to reprocess the spent fuel let alone fluoridate and de-fluoridate it on site.

  5. So what if it’s “complicated”? Every real life, large scale industrial process is “complicated”. You might prototype something simple, but when the time comes to actually implement it, you’ve got all the loose ends to tie up, and that’s “complex”. Take a look at an oil refinery some time. Or a semiconductor plant. The reasons it might be competitive are fairly obvious: You can continuously reprocess the fuel on site, only removing the actual wastes, permitting extremely high burnup rates. And the reactor doesn’t have to be shut down for this, so it will have a higher duty cycle. The reactor doesn’t have to run pressurized, which simplifies the design and operation substantially, and eliminates failure modes. You never have to transport the fuel away from the reactor. Heck, when the reactor reaches it’s design lifetime, you install another next to it, and pump the fuel load over. No massive tanks traveling around with radioactive cargo.

  6. I´m sure that you are dependent in your daily life of system that seems “ridiculously complicated” to you. Maybe that´s why so often antinukes have so low technology understanding? Smart organisations in the growing “fear industry” play just on peoples low understanding of technology. We should start a new fear organisation though humanity have a limited less catastrophe desire, but one that focus on real treats from fear industry?

  7. Oil refineries are complicated too, which doesn’t stop them providing about a quarter of the word’s energy. They don’t usually give you time to stand back and think about it when they go wrong, either. This from last month, in high-tech Germany -‘An explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Vohburg, Germany, early Saturday morning left eight people injured and around 1,800 people evacuated.’ This month, in Canada -‘Irving Oil confirmed a “major incident” at its refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, after residents reported an explosion at the facility, a critical source of fuel to the U.S. Northeast.’ From April, in Wisconsin – ‘Debris from the ensuing blast flew about 200 feet and punctured an aboveground storage tank containing asphalt, causing more than 15,000 barrels of hot asphalt to spill into the refinery. The asphalt ignited about two hours later, triggering a large fire. Overall, 36 people sought medical attention, according to CSB, and officials evacuated a large portion of the northwestern Wisconsin city’s residents.’ Of course, natural gas explosions and coal mining catastrophes are much more common.

  8. The scheme does seem too complicated. I am not sure how or if civilization can survive, since solar seems insufficient, and fusion seems unattainable, commercially. Maybe some improvement in Betavoltaics, which may be safe enough to use and cheap enough?

  9. So what if it’s complicated””? Every real life”””” large scale industrial process is “”””complicated””””. You might prototype something simple”” but when the time comes to actually implement it you’ve got all the loose ends to tie up”” and that’s “”””complex””””. Take a look at an oil refinery some time. Or a semiconductor plant.The reasons it might be competitive are fairly obvious: You can continuously reprocess the fuel on site”” only removing the actual wastes permitting extremely high burnup rates. And the reactor doesn’t have to be shut down for this so it will have a higher duty cycle.The reactor doesn’t have to run pressurized which simplifies the design and operation substantially and eliminates failure modes.You never have to transport the fuel away from the reactor. Heck when the reactor reaches it’s design lifetime you install another next to it”” and pump the fuel load over. No massive tanks traveling around with radioactive cargo.”””

  10. I´m sure that you are dependent in your daily life of system that seems ridiculously complicated”” to you.Maybe that´s why so often antinukes have so low technology understanding? Smart organisations in the growing “”””fear industry”””” play just on peoples low understanding of technology.We should start a new fear organisation though humanity have a limited less catastrophe desire”””” but one that focus on real treats from fear industry?”””””””

  11. Oil refineries are complicated too which doesn’t stop them providing about a quarter of the word’s energy. They don’t usually give you time to stand back and think about it when they go wrong either. This from last month in high-tech Germany -‘An explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Vohburg Germany early Saturday morning left eight people injured and around 1800 people evacuated.’ This month in Canada -‘Irving Oil confirmed a major incident”” at its refinery in Saint John”” New Brunswick after residents reported an explosion at the facility a critical source of fuel to the U.S. Northeast.’ From April in Wisconsin – ‘Debris from the ensuing blast flew about 200 feet and punctured an aboveground storage tank containing asphalt causing more than 15000 barrels of hot asphalt to spill into the refinery. The asphalt ignited about two hours later triggering a large fire. Overall 36 people sought medical attention according to CSB and officials evacuated a large portion of the northwestern Wisconsin city’s residents.’Of course”” natural gas explosions and coal mining catastrophes are much more common.”””””””

  12. The scheme does seem too complicated. I am not sure how or if civilization can survive since solar seems insufficient and fusion seems unattainable commercially. Maybe some improvement in Betavoltaics which may be safe enough to use and cheap enough?

  13. I hope someone figures it out soon. The only new reactors I have heard of so far are from NuScale that are in any danger of being approved in the US, and even they say they are having a hard time getting approved because of the regulatory process. We desperately need nuclear power that is safe and cost effective, so I hope it gets sorted out soon. A cost competitive reactor that eats nuclear waste for fuel would be ideal for bypassing the NIMBY/environmental groups as long as it is walk away safe, but I have not heard of any capable of that getting approved here. I believe nuclear power is now in a race with batteries. If battery prices and technologies coupled with wind/solar/nat gas continue to improve there will be a tipping point where nuclear is no longer needed and outside of space applications, nuclear is dead in the US.

  14. I’m a chemical engineer. The fluorination scheme looks workable to me. But what I do think is a problem is the number of neutrons generated. Two neutrons are needed for each thorium atom fused. But in the real world neutron leakage absorption by non fuel elements means you need extras in order for it to work. U233 generated from thorium makes barely more than 2 neutrons when bombarded with thermal neutrons. I think you need a fast neutron reactor to make this work.

  15. I am not nuclear chemist or scientist, but it looks simpler than Krebs Cycle and other ridiculously simple biology. The hard part looks like when people are introduced and accidents occur. The decay products are relatively short-lived and hard to weaponize (other than dirty bombs). I hope this can be figured out. And they can deliver that energy to people who need it long term or emergency.

  16. I’m a chemical engineer. The fluorination scheme looks workable to me. But what I do think is a problem is the number of neutrons generated. Two neutrons are needed for each thorium atom fused. But in the real world neutron leakage absorption by non fuel elements means you need extras in order for it to work. U233 generated from thorium makes barely more than 2 neutrons when bombarded with thermal neutrons. I think you need a fast neutron reactor to make this work.

  17. I am not nuclear chemist or scientist but it looks simpler than Krebs Cycle and other ridiculously simple biology. The hard part looks like when people are introduced and accidents occur. The decay products are relatively short-lived and hard to weaponize (other than dirty bombs). I hope this can be figured out. And they can deliver that energy to people who need it long term or emergency.

  18. I hope someone figures it out soon. The only new reactors I have heard of so far are from NuScale that are in any danger of being approved in the US and even they say they are having a hard time getting approved because of the regulatory process. We desperately need nuclear power that is safe and cost effective so I hope it gets sorted out soon. A cost competitive reactor that eats nuclear waste for fuel would be ideal for bypassing the NIMBY/environmental groups as long as it is walk away safe but I have not heard of any capable of that getting approved here. I believe nuclear power is now in a race with batteries. If battery prices and technologies coupled with wind/solar/nat gas continue to improve there will be a tipping point where nuclear is no longer needed and outside of space applications nuclear is dead in the US.

  19. In a conventional solid-fueled reactors, the consumption of fuel, and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling” Does that mean the CANDU reactor is not ‘conventional’? http://www.nuclearfaq.ca cnf_sectionA.htm#e2 Replace space with slash in URL

  20. In a conventional solid-fueled reactors the consumption of fuel” and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling””Does that mean the CANDU reactor is not ‘conventional’?www.nuclearfaq.ca cnf_sectionA.htm#e2Replace space with slash in URL”””

  21. Nuclear energy has this peculiar property in that once started it doesn’t stop burning. Everything else will stop burning and eventually cool down. You make not have notice but we don’t clean up nuclear disasters. We just cover it up and walk away.

  22. This stuff has been passed on for decades – slight variation using lithium… I would imagine the NF3 isn’t a new idea either. We’re gonna keep passing on it. Trust me. No government is going to trust a bunch of momos to run these buckets of slop. MSRs are like an internet meme. If the Russians ain’t doing it, and they are technology leaders, then it isn’t something worth pursuing. It’s a diversion – patronizing – placating – the left-leaning US govn’t says: “When you come up with a design that isn’t dangerous, we’ll build gozillians of them. Here is $2.6M, go do a paper design and some small scale experiments with un-irradiated material.” Best they hope is a 1000 STEM graduates in the field each year just to keep the industry on life support.

  23. Nuclear energy has this peculiar property in that once started it doesn’t stop burning. Everything else will stop burning and eventually cool down. You make not have notice but we don’t clean up nuclear disasters. We just cover it up and walk away.

  24. This stuff has been passed on for decades – slight variation using lithium… I would imagine the NF3 isn’t a new idea either. We’re gonna keep passing on it. Trust me. No government is going to trust a bunch of momos to run these buckets of slop.MSRs are like an internet meme.If the Russians ain’t doing it and they are technology leaders then it isn’t something worth pursuing. It’s a diversion – patronizing – placating – the left-leaning US govn’t says: When you come up with a design that isn’t dangerous” we’ll build gozillians of them. Here is $2.6M” go do a paper design and some small scale experiments with un-irradiated material.”” Best they hope is a 1000 STEM graduates in the field each year just to keep the industry on life support.”””

  25. The CANDU is not considered conventional, no. Great design in many ways, and that is one of them. They can actively shift the fuel and refuel.

  26. The CANDU is not considered conventional no. Great design in many ways and that is one of them. They can actively shift the fuel and refuel.

  27. Wait…. When ORNL had a MSR working originally they actually turned it off on Friday, it drained to a cooling tank, and they heated it back up and started again on Monday. So I don’t think it is as difficult as you say. These are non pressurized vessels and moderately sized. Even refineries can take a week to cool down. In fact, a buddy on mine was a pioneer in that he suggested they used liquid nitrogen to cool down the tanks, saving days of lost turn around time and in general millions of dollars. And it worked on towers that were a lot larger and nearly as hot as a unit like this would be.

  28. Wait…. When ORNL had a MSR working originally they actually turned it off on Friday it drained to a cooling tank and they heated it back up and started again on Monday.So I don’t think it is as difficult as you say. These are non pressurized vessels and moderately sized.Even refineries can take a week to cool down. In fact a buddy on mine was a pioneer in that he suggested they used liquid nitrogen to cool down the tanks saving days of lost turn around time and in general millions of dollars. And it worked on towers that were a lot larger and nearly as hot as a unit like this would be.

  29. MSRE and PWRs were developed by massive government $$$, and employed the brightest minds of the time. The director of the program and the individual most responsible for the basic design of the nuclear reactor utilized across the planet said -and I paraphrase- “using solid nuclear fuel for electrical generation is stupid, stupid, stupid” Yet it is done, to the tune of trillions of dollars in commerce and industry across the globe, drives the economy of entire countries, propels fleets of the most deadly military vessels, indeed is behind the principle heart of every stellar and interstellar satellite. Was it complicated? YES. When you consider the number one difference between every 3rd and 1st world country on the planet is largely determined by the availability of cheap, abundant energy, it should not come as a surprise that the company that produces the technology to bring liquid fuel reactors into the realm of possibility will be handsomely rewarded. The potential increase of just 1% in fuel burn-up improvement would alone fund every dollar ever applied to the technology and molten salt reactors hold the potential of double digit improvements, they won’t be cheap and they will be dangerous but the potential for that gain will drive it forward. Naysayers will bang the drum of “scary” “dangerous” “difficult” but they have been and will continue to be drowned under the simple expediency of U(potential energy)=$=done

  30. Great. You are missing the point about the radiological hazard. Also, they wouldn’t have had to “heat it back up” after a weekend – it would stay hot. One experiment from the 60s and 70s and it is the answer to everything I comment on here – every time – ‘hey, MSRE this, MSRE that’.

  31. Exactly mark. Murphy is going to own these systems – they are going to have problems commensurate with their complexity and they will be so contaminated with what would normally be held within clad tubes that they cannot be repaired. They would have a lot of downtime to say the least. Regulator would be all over them making sure dose stays low – they would be paralyzed by problems and oversight. For good reason. Also, nuclear waste doesn’t need to be dealt with. It can be placed in air-cooled sarcophagi and left that way safely for millennia like the Egyptian mummies. Believe it – if you can make a pressure vessel that withstands 2300 psi for 60 years at 610F, then you can certainly make a robust can that can hold the stuff long term. Spent clad fuel is the tightest, smallest volume, most durably packaged waste there is. The fuel was boiled for 6 years in what amounts to an autoclave – it is taken from the reactor intact, un-perforated, and still very durable. After just a few years, the 460kg assembly makes only a few kw – although it will give you a lethal dose quickly if un-shielded.

  32. Dude, half the world hates/fears nuclear because a massive earthquake/tsunami swamped a 30-year old site in Japan. See, I don’t hate nuclear – quite the opposite – I’ve dedicated my life to it and I try to give a hard backstop to all the MSR fanboys here. Trying to temper the fanboys – lower their expectations – let them down easy.

  33. ‘MSRs generally considered cheaper per GWH and more likely to pass regulation…” Dude, you might design whatever IC/E is – totally buy that – but this subject is obviously outside of your experience base – just a hobby. They are not cheaper per GWH because they don’t exist. That is a fact. None exist today. The entire MSR experience base is a pair of experiments from 50 and 60 years ago. The cleanup was expensive by the way. Licensing focuses on protecting the public and the workers from dose. A bucket of slop without what is universally referred to as “the second fission product barrier” (i.e. cladding) and which requires systems that have no analogue in operating reactors to contain and store gaseous radioactive effluent IS NOT licensable.

  34. MSRE and PWRs were developed by massive government $$$ and employed the brightest minds of the time. The director of the program and the individual most responsible for the basic design of the nuclear reactor utilized across the planet said -and I paraphrase- using solid nuclear fuel for electrical generation is stupid” stupid” stupid”” Yet it is done”” to the tune of trillions of dollars in commerce and industry across the globe drives the economy of entire countries propels fleets of the most deadly military vessels indeed is behind the principle heart of every stellar and interstellar satellite. Was it complicated? YES. When you consider the number one difference between every 3rd and 1st world country on the planet is largely determined by the availability of cheap abundant energy it should not come as a surprise that the company that produces the technology to bring liquid fuel reactors into the realm of possibility will be handsomely rewarded. The potential increase of just 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in fuel burn-up improvement would alone fund every dollar ever applied to the technology and molten salt reactors hold the potential of double digit improvements”” they won’t be cheap and they will be dangerous but the potential for that gain will drive it forward. Naysayers will bang the drum of “”””scary”””” “”””dangerous”””” “”””difficult”””” but they have been and will continue to be drowned under the simple expediency of U(potential energy)=$=done”””

  35. Great. You are missing the point about the radiological hazard.Also they wouldn’t have had to heat it back up”” after a weekend – it would stay hot.One experiment from the 60s and 70s and it is the answer to everything I comment on here – every time – ‘hey”” MSRE this”” MSRE that’.”””

  36. Exactly mark. Murphy is going to own these systems – they are going to have problems commensurate with their complexity and they will be so contaminated with what would normally be held within clad tubes that they cannot be repaired. They would have a lot of downtime to say the least. Regulator would be all over them making sure dose stays low – they would be paralyzed by problems and oversight. For good reason. Also nuclear waste doesn’t need to be dealt with. It can be placed in air-cooled sarcophagi and left that way safely for millennia like the Egyptian mummies. Believe it – if you can make a pressure vessel that withstands 2300 psi for 60 years at 610F then you can certainly make a robust can that can hold the stuff long term.Spent clad fuel is the tightest smallest volume most durably packaged waste there is. The fuel was boiled for 6 years in what amounts to an autoclave – it is taken from the reactor intact un-perforated and still very durable. After just a few years the 460kg assembly makes only a few kw – although it will give you a lethal dose quickly if un-shielded.

  37. Dude half the world hates/fears nuclear because a massive earthquake/tsunami swamped a 30-year old site in Japan. See I don’t hate nuclear – quite the opposite – I’ve dedicated my life to it and I try to give a hard backstop to all the MSR fanboys here. Trying to temper the fanboys – lower their expectations – let them down easy.

  38. ‘MSRs generally considered cheaper per GWH and more likely to pass regulation…Dude” you might design whatever IC/E is – totally buy that – but this subject is obviously outside of your experience base – just a hobby. They are not cheaper per GWH because they don’t exist. That is a fact. None exist today. The entire MSR experience base is a pair of experiments from 50 and 60 years ago. The cleanup was expensive by the way.Licensing focuses on protecting the public and the workers from dose. A bucket of slop without what is universally referred to as “”the second fission product barrier”””” (i.e. cladding) and which requires systems that have no analogue in operating reactors to contain and store gaseous radioactive effluent IS NOT licensable.”””

  39. I think you completely misunderstand my point of view. Not a fan or a boy. Simply stating know facts. Money or the lure of money will always win out. Will it ever produce 1MW of electrical power? Your guess is as good as mine. If it does, and that’s very much open for debate, it will be as you say very, very difficult. I’m only laying out the argument as I see it. If you weren’t quite so defensive (methinks anti-nuclear??) you would see my comments for what they are. Solid nuclear fuel is used across the globe, much to the chagrin of Alvin Weinberg, and to a lesser extent Glen Seaborg. Read up on Mr. Weinberg’s opinion of using solid nuclear fuel to create electrical energy, and his thoughts on molten fuels. If you remember your history you will recall that nuclear anything did not get millionsx10 spent on it to advance it’s electrical, or propulsive possibilities, it was simply expected to provide the threat of, or the actual bomb, thus giving the US the deterrent it was so desperately seeking (Manhattan Project). The fact that the process of splitting the atom could be used for other things was just icing on the cake. Once the AEC now NRC determined that fission could be used for other less destructive purposes, it was readily embraced. And the single thing that drove that process was U(potential energy)=$ Please dial down the rhetoric. If you are, as you say, willing to talk the technical details I’m willing, but please read and understand my point of view for what it is.

  40. I think you completely misunderstand my point of view. Not a fan or a boy. Simply stating know facts. Money or the lure of money will always win out. Will it ever produce 1MW of electrical power? Your guess is as good as mine. If it does and that’s very much open for debate it will be as you say very very difficult. I’m only laying out the argument as I see it.If you weren’t quite so defensive (methinks anti-nuclear??) you would see my comments for what they are. Solid nuclear fuel is used across the globe much to the chagrin of Alvin Weinberg and to a lesser extent Glen Seaborg. Read up on Mr. Weinberg’s opinion of using solid nuclear fuel to create electrical energy and his thoughts on molten fuels. If you remember your history you will recall that nuclear anything did not get millionsx10 spent on it to advance it’s electrical or propulsive possibilities it was simply expected to provide the threat of or the actual bomb thus giving the US the deterrent it was so desperately seeking (Manhattan Project). The fact that the process of splitting the atom could be used for other things was just icing on the cake. Once the AEC now NRC determined that fission could be used for other less destructive purposes it was readily embraced. And the single thing that drove that process was U(potential energy)=$Please dial down the rhetoric. If you are as you say willing to talk the technical details I’m willing but please read and understand my point of view for what it is.

  41. Have you ever seen the flow diagrams for a coal burning power plant? Coal, ashes, hot flu gas. And the quantities involved are hundreds of tons daily. With this process only one or two tons daily need be processed.

  42. Have you ever seen the flow diagrams for a coal burning power plant? Coal, ashes, hot flu gas. And the quantities involved are hundreds of tons daily. With this process only one or two tons daily need be processed.

  43. Again, you’re not discussing technical details. Much to your chagrin, I don’t have a high opinion of Alvin Weinberg or Glen Seaborg’s opinions. People that believe the MSR is the best thing since sliced bread or the LWR have an incomplete picture of the ‘big picture’ of nuclear energy and are generally looking from outside the industry and its process – all of which exist to protect the public. Like I said, when you have some technical details to discuss, bring ’em. Otherwise you are *just* a fanman (not a boy).

  44. Again, you’re not discussing technical details. Much to your chagrin, I don’t have a high opinion of Alvin Weinberg or Glen Seaborg’s opinions. People that believe the MSR is the best thing since sliced bread or the LWR have an incomplete picture of the ‘big picture’ of nuclear energy and are generally looking from outside the industry and its process – all of which exist to protect the public. Like I said, when you have some technical details to discuss, bring ’em. Otherwise you are *just* a fanman (not a boy).

  45. You forgot the thorium to Uranium transition element Protactinium, which we are told is like a light switch, decaying rapidly back to U when fuel is deactivated. Perhaps proper management of the element would allow it to be used as a spallator-destroyer of unwanted nuclides like neptunium.

  46. The cladding degradation is very small, as I read that only 0.05% of tubes develops a leak during operation. There is however a heat stress problem for which paddles are introduced into the core to straighten the tubes out. I understand that this may be tackled by adding Si-C sheathing to the fuel.

    CANDU is not conventional, in that fuel rods of any condition are simply bundled together in larger tubes which are in turn surrounded by heavy water. Any future of thorium as I see it would be in the use of CANDU to minimize reliance on enrichment ( U-233 replaces U-235) and on the reuse of spent fuel rods, in a practice called DUPIC (any leftover thorium in the spent fuel may have a much greater and safer capacity for irradiative transmutation than U-238)

  47. So after reading those gee whiz accounts of Dr. Weinberg’s reactor that was accused of promoting unacceptable corrosion — just some defamation we were told, to discredit Weinberg and his MSR concept, guess what? Corrosion is a big time problem, now that we are going ahead with the technology!

    For all the concerns about fluorine, why not utilize chlorine instead? This is what the Moltex scheme proposes. Instead of a giant circulating salt bath, why not put the liquified elements in narrow removable tubes instead, with scads of galvanic capacity to absorb metal nuclides, and redirect ventilated gas? Again, Moltex. Or why not leave spent fuel in solid form to fill those tubes with a liquified jacket of salt, something like the potassium used to line fuel elements in liquid metal reactors.

    The best I can say for MSR’s now is that they would be a disguised fuel reprocessing scheme, as the fuel treatments are as complex as anything in UREX or PUREX. And might as well maximize the reuse of spent fuel — this business with lithium and thorium is an obsession, pure and simple. There is not such a scarcity or hazard to uranium based fuels that we must worry so much.

    I note on the other side of the equation that Lightbridge, the most practical proponent of thorium as a fuel ingredient, has abandoned its experiments, and muddled in its public literature any rationales for embarking on its thorium-uranium experiments to begin with. What gives?

  48. I think you completely misunderstand my point of view. Not a fan or a boy. Simply stating know facts. Money or the lure of money will always win out. Will it ever produce 1MW of electrical power? Your guess is as good as mine. If it does, and that’s very much open for debate, it will be as you say very, very difficult. I’m only laying out the argument as I see it. If you weren’t quite so defensive (methinks anti-nuclear??) you would see my comments for what they are. Solid nuclear fuel is used across the globe, much to the chagrin of Alvin Weinberg, and to a lesser extent Glen Seaborg. Read up on Mr. Weinberg’s opinion of using solid nuclear fuel to create electrical energy, and his thoughts on molten fuels. If you remember your history you will recall that nuclear anything did not get millionsx10 spent on it to advance it’s electrical, or propulsive possibilities, it was simply expected to provide the threat of, or the actual bomb, thus giving the US the deterrent it was so desperately seeking (Manhattan Project). The fact that the process of splitting the atom could be used for other things was just icing on the cake. Once the AEC now NRC determined that fission could be used for other less destructive purposes, it was readily embraced. And the single thing that drove that process was U(potential energy)=$ Please dial down the rhetoric. If you are, as you say, willing to talk the technical details I’m willing, but please read and understand my point of view for what it is.

  49. I think you completely misunderstand my point of view. Not a fan or a boy. Simply stating know facts. Money or the lure of money will always win out. Will it ever produce 1MW of electrical power? Your guess is as good as mine. If it does and that’s very much open for debate it will be as you say very very difficult. I’m only laying out the argument as I see it.If you weren’t quite so defensive (methinks anti-nuclear??) you would see my comments for what they are. Solid nuclear fuel is used across the globe much to the chagrin of Alvin Weinberg and to a lesser extent Glen Seaborg. Read up on Mr. Weinberg’s opinion of using solid nuclear fuel to create electrical energy and his thoughts on molten fuels. If you remember your history you will recall that nuclear anything did not get millionsx10 spent on it to advance it’s electrical or propulsive possibilities it was simply expected to provide the threat of or the actual bomb thus giving the US the deterrent it was so desperately seeking (Manhattan Project). The fact that the process of splitting the atom could be used for other things was just icing on the cake. Once the AEC now NRC determined that fission could be used for other less destructive purposes it was readily embraced. And the single thing that drove that process was U(potential energy)=$Please dial down the rhetoric. If you are as you say willing to talk the technical details I’m willing but please read and understand my point of view for what it is.

  50. They built a waste repository in Nevada. The governor of Nevada waited until is was built, why not accept the money and the jobs, then he said no you can’t shipped the radioactive waste thru Nevada. And that is the issue. Building a waste repository in every state that has a nuclear power plant will be difficult and expensive. You might not be able to find a geologically stable location in each state. The waste pool were never designed and built to last the required thousands of years required. A few have sprung tiny leaks. The issue is that we are not adult enough to handle nukes.

  51. I think you completely misunderstand my point of view. Not a fan or a boy. Simply stating know facts. Money or the lure of money will always win out. Will it ever produce 1MW of electrical power? Your guess is as good as mine. If it does, and that’s very much open for debate, it will be as you say very, very difficult. I’m only laying out the argument as I see it.
    If you weren’t quite so defensive (methinks anti-nuclear??) you would see my comments for what they are.
    Solid nuclear fuel is used across the globe, much to the chagrin of Alvin Weinberg, and to a lesser extent Glen Seaborg. Read up on Mr. Weinberg’s opinion of using solid nuclear fuel to create electrical energy, and his thoughts on molten fuels.
    If you remember your history you will recall that nuclear anything did not get millionsx10 spent on it to advance it’s electrical, or propulsive possibilities, it was simply expected to provide the threat of, or the actual bomb, thus giving the US the deterrent it was so desperately seeking (Manhattan Project). The fact that the process of splitting the atom could be used for other things was just icing on the cake.
    Once the AEC now NRC determined that fission could be used for other less destructive purposes, it was readily embraced. And the single thing that drove that process was U(potential energy)=$
    Please dial down the rhetoric. If you are, as you say, willing to talk the technical details I’m willing, but please read and understand my point of view for what it is.

  52. MSRE and PWRs were developed by massive government $$$, and employed the brightest minds of the time. The director of the program and the individual most responsible for the basic design of the nuclear reactor utilized across the planet said -and I paraphrase- “using solid nuclear fuel for electrical generation is stupid, stupid, stupid” Yet it is done, to the tune of trillions of dollars in commerce and industry across the globe, drives the economy of entire countries, propels fleets of the most deadly military vessels, indeed is behind the principle heart of every stellar and interstellar satellite. Was it complicated? YES. When you consider the number one difference between every 3rd and 1st world country on the planet is largely determined by the availability of cheap, abundant energy, it should not come as a surprise that the company that produces the technology to bring liquid fuel reactors into the realm of possibility will be handsomely rewarded. The potential increase of just 1% in fuel burn-up improvement would alone fund every dollar ever applied to the technology and molten salt reactors hold the potential of double digit improvements, they won’t be cheap and they will be dangerous but the potential for that gain will drive it forward. Naysayers will bang the drum of “scary” “dangerous” “difficult” but they have been and will continue to be drowned under the simple expediency of U(potential energy)=$=done

  53. MSRE and PWRs were developed by massive government $$$ and employed the brightest minds of the time. The director of the program and the individual most responsible for the basic design of the nuclear reactor utilized across the planet said -and I paraphrase- using solid nuclear fuel for electrical generation is stupid” stupid” stupid”” Yet it is done”” to the tune of trillions of dollars in commerce and industry across the globe drives the economy of entire countries propels fleets of the most deadly military vessels indeed is behind the principle heart of every stellar and interstellar satellite. Was it complicated? YES. When you consider the number one difference between every 3rd and 1st world country on the planet is largely determined by the availability of cheap abundant energy it should not come as a surprise that the company that produces the technology to bring liquid fuel reactors into the realm of possibility will be handsomely rewarded. The potential increase of just 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in fuel burn-up improvement would alone fund every dollar ever applied to the technology and molten salt reactors hold the potential of double digit improvements”” they won’t be cheap and they will be dangerous but the potential for that gain will drive it forward. Naysayers will bang the drum of “”””scary”””” “”””dangerous”””” “”””difficult”””” but they have been and will continue to be drowned under the simple expediency of U(potential energy)=$=done”””

  54. Great. You are missing the point about the radiological hazard. Also, they wouldn’t have had to “heat it back up” after a weekend – it would stay hot. One experiment from the 60s and 70s and it is the answer to everything I comment on here – every time – ‘hey, MSRE this, MSRE that’.

  55. Great. You are missing the point about the radiological hazard.Also they wouldn’t have had to heat it back up”” after a weekend – it would stay hot.One experiment from the 60s and 70s and it is the answer to everything I comment on here – every time – ‘hey”” MSRE this”” MSRE that’.”””

  56. Exactly mark. Murphy is going to own these systems – they are going to have problems commensurate with their complexity and they will be so contaminated with what would normally be held within clad tubes that they cannot be repaired. They would have a lot of downtime to say the least. Regulator would be all over them making sure dose stays low – they would be paralyzed by problems and oversight. For good reason. Also, nuclear waste doesn’t need to be dealt with. It can be placed in air-cooled sarcophagi and left that way safely for millennia like the Egyptian mummies. Believe it – if you can make a pressure vessel that withstands 2300 psi for 60 years at 610F, then you can certainly make a robust can that can hold the stuff long term. Spent clad fuel is the tightest, smallest volume, most durably packaged waste there is. The fuel was boiled for 6 years in what amounts to an autoclave – it is taken from the reactor intact, un-perforated, and still very durable. After just a few years, the 460kg assembly makes only a few kw – although it will give you a lethal dose quickly if un-shielded.

  57. Exactly mark. Murphy is going to own these systems – they are going to have problems commensurate with their complexity and they will be so contaminated with what would normally be held within clad tubes that they cannot be repaired. They would have a lot of downtime to say the least. Regulator would be all over them making sure dose stays low – they would be paralyzed by problems and oversight. For good reason. Also nuclear waste doesn’t need to be dealt with. It can be placed in air-cooled sarcophagi and left that way safely for millennia like the Egyptian mummies. Believe it – if you can make a pressure vessel that withstands 2300 psi for 60 years at 610F then you can certainly make a robust can that can hold the stuff long term.Spent clad fuel is the tightest smallest volume most durably packaged waste there is. The fuel was boiled for 6 years in what amounts to an autoclave – it is taken from the reactor intact un-perforated and still very durable. After just a few years the 460kg assembly makes only a few kw – although it will give you a lethal dose quickly if un-shielded.

  58. Dude, half the world hates/fears nuclear because a massive earthquake/tsunami swamped a 30-year old site in Japan. See, I don’t hate nuclear – quite the opposite – I’ve dedicated my life to it and I try to give a hard backstop to all the MSR fanboys here. Trying to temper the fanboys – lower their expectations – let them down easy.

  59. Dude half the world hates/fears nuclear because a massive earthquake/tsunami swamped a 30-year old site in Japan. See I don’t hate nuclear – quite the opposite – I’ve dedicated my life to it and I try to give a hard backstop to all the MSR fanboys here. Trying to temper the fanboys – lower their expectations – let them down easy.

  60. ‘MSRs generally considered cheaper per GWH and more likely to pass regulation…” Dude, you might design whatever IC/E is – totally buy that – but this subject is obviously outside of your experience base – just a hobby. They are not cheaper per GWH because they don’t exist. That is a fact. None exist today. The entire MSR experience base is a pair of experiments from 50 and 60 years ago. The cleanup was expensive by the way. Licensing focuses on protecting the public and the workers from dose. A bucket of slop without what is universally referred to as “the second fission product barrier” (i.e. cladding) and which requires systems that have no analogue in operating reactors to contain and store gaseous radioactive effluent IS NOT licensable.

  61. ‘MSRs generally considered cheaper per GWH and more likely to pass regulation…Dude” you might design whatever IC/E is – totally buy that – but this subject is obviously outside of your experience base – just a hobby. They are not cheaper per GWH because they don’t exist. That is a fact. None exist today. The entire MSR experience base is a pair of experiments from 50 and 60 years ago. The cleanup was expensive by the way.Licensing focuses on protecting the public and the workers from dose. A bucket of slop without what is universally referred to as “”the second fission product barrier”””” (i.e. cladding) and which requires systems that have no analogue in operating reactors to contain and store gaseous radioactive effluent IS NOT licensable.”””

  62. MSRE and PWRs were developed by massive government $$$, and employed the brightest minds of the time.
    The director of the program and the individual most responsible for the basic design of the nuclear reactor utilized across the planet said -and I paraphrase- “using solid nuclear fuel for electrical generation is stupid, stupid, stupid” Yet it is done, to the tune of trillions of dollars in commerce and industry across the globe, drives the economy of entire countries, propels fleets of the most deadly military vessels, indeed is behind the principle heart of every stellar and interstellar satellite.
    Was it complicated? YES. When you consider the number one difference between every 3rd and 1st world country on the planet is largely determined by the availability of cheap, abundant energy, it should not come as a surprise that the company that produces the technology to bring liquid fuel reactors into the realm of possibility will be handsomely rewarded. The potential increase of just 1% in fuel burn-up improvement would alone fund every dollar ever applied to the technology and molten salt reactors hold the potential of double digit improvements, they won’t be cheap and they will be dangerous but the potential for that gain will drive it forward.
    Naysayers will bang the drum of “scary” “dangerous” “difficult” but they have been and will continue to be drowned under the simple expediency of
    U(potential energy)=$=done

  63. Great. You are missing the point about the radiological hazard.

    Also, they wouldn’t have had to “heat it back up” after a weekend – it would stay hot.

    One experiment from the 60s and 70s and it is the answer to everything I comment on here – every time – ‘hey, MSRE this, MSRE that’.

  64. Exactly mark. Murphy is going to own these systems – they are going to have problems commensurate with their complexity and they will be so contaminated with what would normally be held within clad tubes that they cannot be repaired. They would have a lot of downtime to say the least. Regulator would be all over them making sure dose stays low – they would be paralyzed by problems and oversight. For good reason.

    Also, nuclear waste doesn’t need to be dealt with. It can be placed in air-cooled sarcophagi and left that way safely for millennia like the Egyptian mummies. Believe it – if you can make a pressure vessel that withstands 2300 psi for 60 years at 610F, then you can certainly make a robust can that can hold the stuff long term.

    Spent clad fuel is the tightest, smallest volume, most durably packaged waste there is. The fuel was boiled for 6 years in what amounts to an autoclave – it is taken from the reactor intact, un-perforated, and still very durable. After just a few years, the 460kg assembly makes only a few kw – although it will give you a lethal dose quickly if un-shielded.

  65. Wait…. When ORNL had a MSR working originally they actually turned it off on Friday, it drained to a cooling tank, and they heated it back up and started again on Monday. So I don’t think it is as difficult as you say. These are non pressurized vessels and moderately sized. Even refineries can take a week to cool down. In fact, a buddy on mine was a pioneer in that he suggested they used liquid nitrogen to cool down the tanks, saving days of lost turn around time and in general millions of dollars. And it worked on towers that were a lot larger and nearly as hot as a unit like this would be.

  66. Wait…. When ORNL had a MSR working originally they actually turned it off on Friday it drained to a cooling tank and they heated it back up and started again on Monday.So I don’t think it is as difficult as you say. These are non pressurized vessels and moderately sized.Even refineries can take a week to cool down. In fact a buddy on mine was a pioneer in that he suggested they used liquid nitrogen to cool down the tanks saving days of lost turn around time and in general millions of dollars. And it worked on towers that were a lot larger and nearly as hot as a unit like this would be.

  67. Dude, half the world hates/fears nuclear because a massive earthquake/tsunami swamped a 30-year old site in Japan. See, I don’t hate nuclear – quite the opposite – I’ve dedicated my life to it and I try to give a hard backstop to all the MSR fanboys here. Trying to temper the fanboys – lower their expectations – let them down easy.

  68. ‘MSRs generally considered cheaper per GWH and more likely to pass regulation…”

    Dude, you might design whatever IC/E is – totally buy that – but this subject is obviously outside of your experience base – just a hobby.

    They are not cheaper per GWH because they don’t exist. That is a fact. None exist today. The entire MSR experience base is a pair of experiments from 50 and 60 years ago. The cleanup was expensive by the way.

    Licensing focuses on protecting the public and the workers from dose. A bucket of slop without what is universally referred to as “the second fission product barrier” (i.e. cladding) and which requires systems that have no analogue in operating reactors to contain and store gaseous radioactive effluent IS NOT licensable.

  69. The CANDU is not considered conventional, no. Great design in many ways, and that is one of them. They can actively shift the fuel and refuel.

  70. The CANDU is not considered conventional no. Great design in many ways and that is one of them. They can actively shift the fuel and refuel.

  71. Wait…. When ORNL had a MSR working originally they actually turned it off on Friday, it drained to a cooling tank, and they heated it back up and started again on Monday.

    So I don’t think it is as difficult as you say. These are non pressurized vessels and moderately sized.

    Even refineries can take a week to cool down. In fact, a buddy on mine was a pioneer in that he suggested they used liquid nitrogen to cool down the tanks, saving days of lost turn around time and in general millions of dollars. And it worked on towers that were a lot larger and nearly as hot as a unit like this would be.

  72. Nuclear energy has this peculiar property in that once started it doesn’t stop burning. Everything else will stop burning and eventually cool down. You make not have notice but we don’t clean up nuclear disasters. We just cover it up and walk away.

  73. Nuclear energy has this peculiar property in that once started it doesn’t stop burning. Everything else will stop burning and eventually cool down. You make not have notice but we don’t clean up nuclear disasters. We just cover it up and walk away.

  74. This stuff has been passed on for decades – slight variation using lithium… I would imagine the NF3 isn’t a new idea either. We’re gonna keep passing on it. Trust me. No government is going to trust a bunch of momos to run these buckets of slop. MSRs are like an internet meme. If the Russians ain’t doing it, and they are technology leaders, then it isn’t something worth pursuing. It’s a diversion – patronizing – placating – the left-leaning US govn’t says: “When you come up with a design that isn’t dangerous, we’ll build gozillians of them. Here is $2.6M, go do a paper design and some small scale experiments with un-irradiated material.” Best they hope is a 1000 STEM graduates in the field each year just to keep the industry on life support.

  75. This stuff has been passed on for decades – slight variation using lithium… I would imagine the NF3 isn’t a new idea either. We’re gonna keep passing on it. Trust me. No government is going to trust a bunch of momos to run these buckets of slop.MSRs are like an internet meme.If the Russians ain’t doing it and they are technology leaders then it isn’t something worth pursuing. It’s a diversion – patronizing – placating – the left-leaning US govn’t says: When you come up with a design that isn’t dangerous” we’ll build gozillians of them. Here is $2.6M” go do a paper design and some small scale experiments with un-irradiated material.”” Best they hope is a 1000 STEM graduates in the field each year just to keep the industry on life support.”””

  76. In a conventional solid-fueled reactors, the consumption of fuel, and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling” Does that mean the CANDU reactor is not ‘conventional’? http://www.nuclearfaq.ca cnf_sectionA.htm#e2 Replace space with slash in URL

  77. In a conventional solid-fueled reactors the consumption of fuel” and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling””Does that mean the CANDU reactor is not ‘conventional’?www.nuclearfaq.ca cnf_sectionA.htm#e2Replace space with slash in URL”””

  78. I am not nuclear chemist or scientist, but it looks simpler than Krebs Cycle and other ridiculously simple biology. The hard part looks like when people are introduced and accidents occur. The decay products are relatively short-lived and hard to weaponize (other than dirty bombs). I hope this can be figured out. And they can deliver that energy to people who need it long term or emergency.

  79. I am not nuclear chemist or scientist but it looks simpler than Krebs Cycle and other ridiculously simple biology. The hard part looks like when people are introduced and accidents occur. The decay products are relatively short-lived and hard to weaponize (other than dirty bombs). I hope this can be figured out. And they can deliver that energy to people who need it long term or emergency.

  80. I’m a chemical engineer. The fluorination scheme looks workable to me. But what I do think is a problem is the number of neutrons generated. Two neutrons are needed for each thorium atom fused. But in the real world neutron leakage absorption by non fuel elements means you need extras in order for it to work. U233 generated from thorium makes barely more than 2 neutrons when bombarded with thermal neutrons. I think you need a fast neutron reactor to make this work.

  81. I’m a chemical engineer. The fluorination scheme looks workable to me. But what I do think is a problem is the number of neutrons generated. Two neutrons are needed for each thorium atom fused. But in the real world neutron leakage absorption by non fuel elements means you need extras in order for it to work. U233 generated from thorium makes barely more than 2 neutrons when bombarded with thermal neutrons. I think you need a fast neutron reactor to make this work.

  82. I hope someone figures it out soon. The only new reactors I have heard of so far are from NuScale that are in any danger of being approved in the US, and even they say they are having a hard time getting approved because of the regulatory process. We desperately need nuclear power that is safe and cost effective, so I hope it gets sorted out soon. A cost competitive reactor that eats nuclear waste for fuel would be ideal for bypassing the NIMBY/environmental groups as long as it is walk away safe, but I have not heard of any capable of that getting approved here. I believe nuclear power is now in a race with batteries. If battery prices and technologies coupled with wind/solar/nat gas continue to improve there will be a tipping point where nuclear is no longer needed and outside of space applications, nuclear is dead in the US.

  83. I hope someone figures it out soon. The only new reactors I have heard of so far are from NuScale that are in any danger of being approved in the US and even they say they are having a hard time getting approved because of the regulatory process. We desperately need nuclear power that is safe and cost effective so I hope it gets sorted out soon. A cost competitive reactor that eats nuclear waste for fuel would be ideal for bypassing the NIMBY/environmental groups as long as it is walk away safe but I have not heard of any capable of that getting approved here. I believe nuclear power is now in a race with batteries. If battery prices and technologies coupled with wind/solar/nat gas continue to improve there will be a tipping point where nuclear is no longer needed and outside of space applications nuclear is dead in the US.

  84. Nuclear energy has this peculiar property in that once started it doesn’t stop burning. Everything else will stop burning and eventually cool down. You make not have notice but we don’t clean up nuclear disasters. We just cover it up and walk away.

  85. This stuff has been passed on for decades – slight variation using lithium… I would imagine the NF3 isn’t a new idea either. We’re gonna keep passing on it. Trust me. No government is going to trust a bunch of momos to run these buckets of slop.

    MSRs are like an internet meme.

    If the Russians ain’t doing it, and they are technology leaders, then it isn’t something worth pursuing.

    It’s a diversion – patronizing – placating – the left-leaning US govn’t says: “When you come up with a design that isn’t dangerous, we’ll build gozillians of them. Here is $2.6M, go do a paper design and some small scale experiments with un-irradiated material.” Best they hope is a 1000 STEM graduates in the field each year just to keep the industry on life support.

  86. So what if it’s “complicated”? Every real life, large scale industrial process is “complicated”. You might prototype something simple, but when the time comes to actually implement it, you’ve got all the loose ends to tie up, and that’s “complex”. Take a look at an oil refinery some time. Or a semiconductor plant. The reasons it might be competitive are fairly obvious: You can continuously reprocess the fuel on site, only removing the actual wastes, permitting extremely high burnup rates. And the reactor doesn’t have to be shut down for this, so it will have a higher duty cycle. The reactor doesn’t have to run pressurized, which simplifies the design and operation substantially, and eliminates failure modes. You never have to transport the fuel away from the reactor. Heck, when the reactor reaches it’s design lifetime, you install another next to it, and pump the fuel load over. No massive tanks traveling around with radioactive cargo.

  87. So what if it’s complicated””? Every real life”””” large scale industrial process is “”””complicated””””. You might prototype something simple”” but when the time comes to actually implement it you’ve got all the loose ends to tie up”” and that’s “”””complex””””. Take a look at an oil refinery some time. Or a semiconductor plant.The reasons it might be competitive are fairly obvious: You can continuously reprocess the fuel on site”” only removing the actual wastes permitting extremely high burnup rates. And the reactor doesn’t have to be shut down for this so it will have a higher duty cycle.The reactor doesn’t have to run pressurized which simplifies the design and operation substantially and eliminates failure modes.You never have to transport the fuel away from the reactor. Heck when the reactor reaches it’s design lifetime you install another next to it”” and pump the fuel load over. No massive tanks traveling around with radioactive cargo.”””

  88. I´m sure that you are dependent in your daily life of system that seems “ridiculously complicated” to you. Maybe that´s why so often antinukes have so low technology understanding? Smart organisations in the growing “fear industry” play just on peoples low understanding of technology. We should start a new fear organisation though humanity have a limited less catastrophe desire, but one that focus on real treats from fear industry?

  89. I´m sure that you are dependent in your daily life of system that seems ridiculously complicated”” to you.Maybe that´s why so often antinukes have so low technology understanding? Smart organisations in the growing “”””fear industry”””” play just on peoples low understanding of technology.We should start a new fear organisation though humanity have a limited less catastrophe desire”””” but one that focus on real treats from fear industry?”””””””

  90. Oil refineries are complicated too, which doesn’t stop them providing about a quarter of the word’s energy. They don’t usually give you time to stand back and think about it when they go wrong, either. This from last month, in high-tech Germany -‘An explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Vohburg, Germany, early Saturday morning left eight people injured and around 1,800 people evacuated.’ This month, in Canada -‘Irving Oil confirmed a “major incident” at its refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, after residents reported an explosion at the facility, a critical source of fuel to the U.S. Northeast.’ From April, in Wisconsin – ‘Debris from the ensuing blast flew about 200 feet and punctured an aboveground storage tank containing asphalt, causing more than 15,000 barrels of hot asphalt to spill into the refinery. The asphalt ignited about two hours later, triggering a large fire. Overall, 36 people sought medical attention, according to CSB, and officials evacuated a large portion of the northwestern Wisconsin city’s residents.’ Of course, natural gas explosions and coal mining catastrophes are much more common.

  91. Oil refineries are complicated too which doesn’t stop them providing about a quarter of the word’s energy. They don’t usually give you time to stand back and think about it when they go wrong either. This from last month in high-tech Germany -‘An explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Vohburg Germany early Saturday morning left eight people injured and around 1800 people evacuated.’ This month in Canada -‘Irving Oil confirmed a major incident”” at its refinery in Saint John”” New Brunswick after residents reported an explosion at the facility a critical source of fuel to the U.S. Northeast.’ From April in Wisconsin – ‘Debris from the ensuing blast flew about 200 feet and punctured an aboveground storage tank containing asphalt causing more than 15000 barrels of hot asphalt to spill into the refinery. The asphalt ignited about two hours later triggering a large fire. Overall 36 people sought medical attention according to CSB and officials evacuated a large portion of the northwestern Wisconsin city’s residents.’Of course”” natural gas explosions and coal mining catastrophes are much more common.”””””””

  92. The scheme does seem too complicated. I am not sure how or if civilization can survive, since solar seems insufficient, and fusion seems unattainable, commercially. Maybe some improvement in Betavoltaics, which may be safe enough to use and cheap enough?

  93. The scheme does seem too complicated. I am not sure how or if civilization can survive since solar seems insufficient and fusion seems unattainable commercially. Maybe some improvement in Betavoltaics which may be safe enough to use and cheap enough?

  94. “In a conventional solid-fueled reactors, the consumption of fuel, and the degradation of cladding material are generally the reasons the reactor must be shut down for refueling”

    Does that mean the CANDU reactor is not ‘conventional’?

    http://www.nuclearfaq.ca cnf_sectionA.htm#e2
    Replace space with slash in URL

  95. It is complicated but so are any scheme for dealing with nuclear waste. Even once thru still has a nuclear waste disposal process eventually. Nuclear power will be forever complicated especially if we ever complete the womb to tomb process. So you successfully implement your fluoridation scheme. Everything is working and then one day something goes wrong. How do you fix it? Everything is hot. Got to let it cool down a bit. Then you have to monitor the exposure of the guys who have to fix it. They can only work for a very limited period of time each day. The more complicated the scheme the longer it will take to find and fix the problem.

  96. It is complicated but so are any scheme for dealing with nuclear waste. Even once thru still has a nuclear waste disposal process eventually. Nuclear power will be forever complicated especially if we ever complete the womb to tomb process. So you successfully implement your fluoridation scheme. Everything is working and then one day something goes wrong. How do you fix it? Everything is hot. Got to let it cool down a bit. Then you have to monitor the exposure of the guys who have to fix it. They can only work for a very limited period of time each day. The more complicated the scheme the longer it will take to find and fix the problem.

  97. I am not nuclear chemist or scientist, but it looks simpler than Krebs Cycle and other ridiculously simple biology. The hard part looks like when people are introduced and accidents occur. The decay products are relatively short-lived and hard to weaponize (other than dirty bombs). I hope this can be figured out. And they can deliver that energy to people who need it long term or emergency.

  98. You see how ridiculously complicated these fluorination schemes are, right? ….molten lithium/bismuth in contact with molten salt with megawatts of decay heat actually in the gases coming out of the fluid. Good, spend the money on the basic science. I just don’t see how it will ever be competitive compared to barely competitive LWRs that don’t bother to reprocess the spent fuel, let alone fluoridate and de-fluoridate it on site.

  99. You see how ridiculously complicated these fluorination schemes are right? ….molten lithium/bismuth in contact with molten salt with megawatts of decay heat actually in the gases coming out of the fluid.Good spend the money on the basic science. I just don’t see how it will ever be competitive compared to barely competitive LWRs that don’t bother to reprocess the spent fuel let alone fluoridate and de-fluoridate it on site.

  100. I’m a chemical engineer. The fluorination scheme looks workable to me. But what I do think is a problem is the number of neutrons generated. Two neutrons are needed for each thorium atom fused. But in the real world neutron leakage absorption by non fuel elements means you need extras in order for it to work. U233 generated from thorium makes barely more than 2 neutrons when bombarded with thermal neutrons. I think you need a fast neutron reactor to make this work.

  101. I hope someone figures it out soon. The only new reactors I have heard of so far are from NuScale that are in any danger of being approved in the US, and even they say they are having a hard time getting approved because of the regulatory process. We desperately need nuclear power that is safe and cost effective, so I hope it gets sorted out soon. A cost competitive reactor that eats nuclear waste for fuel would be ideal for bypassing the NIMBY/environmental groups as long as it is walk away safe, but I have not heard of any capable of that getting approved here.

    I believe nuclear power is now in a race with batteries. If battery prices and technologies coupled with wind/solar/nat gas continue to improve there will be a tipping point where nuclear is no longer needed and outside of space applications, nuclear is dead in the US.

  102. So what if it’s “complicated”? Every real life, large scale industrial process is “complicated”. You might prototype something simple, but when the time comes to actually implement it, you’ve got all the loose ends to tie up, and that’s “complex”. Take a look at an oil refinery some time. Or a semiconductor plant.

    The reasons it might be competitive are fairly obvious: You can continuously reprocess the fuel on site, only removing the actual wastes, permitting extremely high burnup rates. And the reactor doesn’t have to be shut down for this, so it will have a higher duty cycle.

    The reactor doesn’t have to run pressurized, which simplifies the design and operation substantially, and eliminates failure modes.

    You never have to transport the fuel away from the reactor. Heck, when the reactor reaches it’s design lifetime, you install another next to it, and pump the fuel load over. No massive tanks traveling around with radioactive cargo.

  103. I´m sure that you are dependent in your daily life of system that seems “ridiculously complicated” to you.

    Maybe that´s why so often antinukes have so low technology understanding?

    Smart organisations in the growing “fear industry” play just on peoples low understanding of technology.

    We should start a new fear organisation though humanity have a limited less catastrophe desire, but one that focus on real treats from fear industry?

  104. Oil refineries are complicated too, which doesn’t stop them providing about a quarter of the word’s energy. They don’t usually give you time to stand back and think about it when they go wrong, either. This from last month, in high-tech Germany -‘An explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Vohburg, Germany, early Saturday morning left eight people injured and around 1,800 people evacuated.’ This month, in Canada -‘Irving Oil confirmed a “major incident” at its refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, after residents reported an explosion at the facility, a critical source of fuel to the U.S. Northeast.’ From April, in Wisconsin – ‘Debris from the ensuing blast flew about 200 feet and punctured an aboveground storage tank containing asphalt, causing more than 15,000 barrels of hot asphalt to spill into the refinery. The asphalt ignited about two hours later, triggering a large fire. Overall, 36 people sought medical attention, according to CSB, and officials evacuated a large portion of the northwestern Wisconsin city’s residents.’
    Of course, natural gas explosions and coal mining catastrophes are much more common.

  105. The scheme does seem too complicated. I am not sure how or if civilization can survive, since solar seems insufficient, and fusion seems unattainable, commercially. Maybe some improvement in Betavoltaics, which may be safe enough to use and cheap enough?

  106. It is complicated but so are any scheme for dealing with nuclear waste. Even once thru still has a nuclear waste disposal process eventually. Nuclear power will be forever complicated especially if we ever complete the womb to tomb process.

    So you successfully implement your fluoridation scheme. Everything is working and then one day something goes wrong. How do you fix it? Everything is hot. Got to let it cool down a bit. Then you have to monitor the exposure of the guys who have to fix it. They can only work for a very limited period of time each day. The more complicated the scheme the longer it will take to find and fix the problem.

  107. You see how ridiculously complicated these fluorination schemes are, right?

    ….molten lithium/bismuth in contact with molten salt with megawatts of decay heat actually in the gases coming out of the fluid.

    Good, spend the money on the basic science. I just don’t see how it will ever be competitive compared to barely competitive LWRs that don’t bother to reprocess the spent fuel, let alone fluoridate and de-fluoridate it on site.

Comments are closed.