In March of 2018, Ed Pheil spoke to International Nuclear Materials Management (Vienna Chapter) about Elysium Industries’ Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor (MCSFR).
In 2018, Elysium Industries USA (Clifton Park, NY) received $3.2 million to develop the computational fluid dynamics models needed to simulate and optimize the flows of chloride molten salt fuel in a reactor vessel and heat exchangers for their Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor design.
DOE Funding: $2,560,000; Non-DOE: $640,000; Total Value: $3,200,000
The Elysium MCSFR will be built utilizing existing code-qualified materials and relies on natural processes. Elysium is simplifying engineering systems saving cost with natural techniques for passive operation and safety.
Everything that Elysium is choosing is to only use what is qualified and working at the time.
The system can convert spent nuclear fuel at 100 times less cost than current reprocessing methods.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
IKR. All we gotta do is chop up the spent fuel in a giant glove box and then dissolve the rubble and scrap metal in acid, do numerous extractions and conversions and voila, all you said happens and we get barrels of aqueous waste to bury in Nevada or Idaho. and your spaceship needs to be at 1000C to radiate the waste heat – it’s ideal.
love it,will get rid of spent fuels inc nukes get heat and electric as well could even fit into spaceship
Oh I get it… Ed has old Navy contacts and friends. Now it makes sense; he did shakedowns for NR. I was wondering what connections he had to get the $2.6M from the DOE. I was also wondering how Kairos power has real funding (just hired my unqualified friend/acquaintance as a senior lead licensing engineer”” or something over there) – then I found out that the former secretary of energy Moniz and his Berkely friend and Kairos lead”” Per Peterson”” were bros from the Osama administration – sat on steering committees together. Maybe had mimosas on occasion.I am learning that I should have attempted to cozy up to the government all these years instead of attempting to stay out of it’s employ (kinda libertarian leaning).”””
IKR. All we gotta do is chop up the spent fuel in a giant glove box and then dissolve the rubble and scrap metal in acid do numerous extractions and conversions and voila all you said happens and we get barrels of aqueous waste to bury in Nevada or Idaho.and your spaceship needs to be at 1000C to radiate the waste heat – it’s ideal.
love itwill get rid of spent fuels inc nukes get heat and electric as well could even fit into spaceship
Shoot, I’d have my own research.
If I had won the 1.6 billion lottery I would have probably funded this research.
Space version obviously would not be launched with SNF. I love nukes, I love rockets, I love nuke powered rockets and even I’m not crazy to launch a few metric tons of SNF dissolved in salt.
I’m like the only guy that treats this DOE grant stuff like others follow the Kardashians. I don’t know why it is so interesting to me to try to understand why some concepts get funding and others don’t. If you dig deep enough, there is drama there; it’s not quite Kardashian grade, but it is there. Influence. Buddies. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Jobs programs for the national labs drama.
Oh, I get it… Ed has old Navy contacts and friends. Now it makes sense; he did shakedowns for NR. I was wondering what connections he had to get the $2.6M from the DOE. I was also wondering how Kairos power has real funding (just hired my unqualified friend/acquaintance as a “senior lead licensing engineer” or something over there) – then I found out that the former secretary of energy Moniz and his Berkely friend and Kairos lead, Per Peterson, were bros from the Osama administration – sat on steering committees together. Maybe had mimosas on occasion. I am learning that I should have attempted to cozy up to the government all these years instead of attempting to stay out of it’s employ (kinda libertarian leaning).
Shoot I’d have my own research.
If I had won the 1.6 billion lottery I would have probably funded this research.
Space version obviously would not be launched with SNF.I love nukes I love rockets I love nuke powered rockets and even I’m not crazy to launch a few metric tons of SNF dissolved in salt.
I’m like the only guy that treats this DOE grant stuff like others follow the Kardashians. I don’t know why it is so interesting to me to try to understand why some concepts get funding and others don’t. If you dig deep enough there is drama there; it’s not quite Kardashian grade but it is there. Influence. Buddies. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Jobs programs for the national labs drama.
I don’t understand the chopping part. I thought the nuclear fuel was already in pellet form once you stripped the fuel rod cladding. I am always interested in anything that can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. I am find with a reactor that can put the waste to use.
The DEEP STATE protects it’s own, and helps its own, to become super rich. You don’t think all the politicians in DC, became wealthy, on a 200k per year salary do you? Considering DC is one of the more EXPENSIVE places to live, and they have to “maintain” a residence in their home district (cough cough P.O. box). Their salary is chump change, compared to lobbyist money, money on kickbacks, insider trading and what not.
I don’t understand the chopping part. I thought the nuclear fuel was already in pellet form once you stripped the fuel rod cladding. I am always interested in anything that can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. I am find with a reactor that can put the waste to use.
The DEEP STATE protects it’s own and helps its own to become super rich.You don’t think all the politicians in DC became wealthy on a 200k per year salary do you?Considering DC is one of the more EXPENSIVE places to live and they have to maintain”” aresidence in their home district (cough cough P.O. box).Their salary is chump change”” compared to lobbyist money money on kickbacks”” insider tradingand what not.”””
The oxide pellets swell during their stay in the reactor. They slide in, but I don’t think they will slide out of the tubes.
1. we agree 2. I don’t want to send up Cs, Sr, I, Pu dissolved in salt on a rocket. Stick to fresh fuel. 3. A metric ton is 1000kg, not thousands of tons.
Yep it is all a conspiracy like global warming. Especially when it dosen’t agree with the alt right sound machine.
I guess those guys at Lawrence Labs who ran MSR for years where all fools. The processes you are talking about are less complicated than fuel reprocessing which is done all the time.
First off they do not need to launch a few thousand tons. The need R233 as a seed and thorium and the salts that do not need to be blended before hand.
The oxide pellets swell during their stay in the reactor. They slide in but I don’t think they will slide out of the tubes.
1. we agree2. I don’t want to send up Cs Sr I Pu dissolved in salt on a rocket. Stick to fresh fuel.3. A metric ton is 1000kg not thousands of tons.
Yep it is all a conspiracy like global warming. Especially when it dosen’t agree with the alt right sound machine.
I guess those guys at Lawrence Labs who ran MSR for years where all fools. The processes you are talking about are less complicated than fuel reprocessing which is done all the time.
First off they do not need to launch a few thousand tons. The need R233 as a seed and thorium and the salts that do not need to be blended before hand.
Funny how some (Mark) lack engineering sense, right? Hmmm. What simple, robust, reliable process can be used to separate intensely radioactive ceramic pellets jammed in tubes? Yep, chop it up remotely. Smash it. Dump it in a big tank and dissolve it in acid. Or have Mark get in there with a can-opener and split the tubes…
Funny how some (Mark) lack engineering sense right? Hmmm. What simple robust reliable process can be used to separate intensely radioactive ceramic pellets jammed in tubes? Yep chop it up remotely. Smash it. Dump it in a big tank and dissolve it in acid.Or have Mark get in there with a can-opener and split the tubes…
Even if one has engineering sense, the swelling part isn’t obvious to us non-nuclear types.
Read the comments and with all fission articles, we’ll need something better than this to make fission a possibility for the future. We need tech that is inherently safe, cheap, and abundant enough. I read a Rod Adam’s article on using inert gases like CO2, or nitrogen, to carry the heat generated by U or Th operating inside a Brayton cycle plant. No water, no sodium, no atmospheric releases. Will this work? Skeptical, but its seems a more workable fix.
Even if one has engineering sense the swelling part isn’t obvious to us non-nuclear types.
Read the comments and with all fission articles we’ll need something better than this to make fission a possibility for the future. We need tech that is inherently safe cheap and abundant enough. I read a Rod Adam’s article on using inert gases like CO2 or nitrogen to carry the heat generated by U or Th operating inside a Brayton cycle plant. No water no sodium no atmospheric releases. Will this work? Skeptical but its seems a more workable fix.
Thanks for the details. From my chemistry knowledge, I know that chopping up the material increases the surface to volume ratio. This increases the reaction rate, since solids react mostly at the surface. Reaction rates are important in industry, which is why a lot of money is invested in developing catalysts. So I’m not contesting that the fuel needs to be chopped up. I’m just saying that for those who aren’t very familiar with reactor internals – which is most of the population – it’s not obvious that the fuel swells and gets jammed. So that particular line of reasoning as to *why* it needs to be chopped, doesn’t naturally follow for most people.
From a world-nuclear.org website: “Chemistry of Purex The used fuel is *chopped up* and dissolved in hot concentrated nitric acid. The first stage separates the uranium and plutonium in the aqueous nitric acid stream from the fission products and minor actinides by a countercurrent solvent extraction process, using tributyl phosphate dissolved in kerosene or dodecane. In a pulsed column uranium and plutonium enter the organic phase while the fission products and other elements remain in the aqueous raffinate.In a second pulsed column uranium is separated from plutonium by reduction with excess U4+ added to the aqueous stream. Plutonium is then transferred to the aqueous phase while the mixture of U4+ and U6+ remains in the organic phase. It is then stripped from the organic solvent with dilute nitric acid.The plutonium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation then subject to an oxalate precipitation process followed by calcination to produce PuO2 in powder form. The uranium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation and calcined to produce UO3 in powder form. It is then converted to UO2 product by reduction in hydrogen.” Now that is the traditional way to do it.
Thanks for the details. From my chemistry knowledge I know that chopping up the material increases the surface to volume ratio. This increases the reaction rate since solids react mostly at the surface. Reaction rates are important in industry which is why a lot of money is invested in developing catalysts.So I’m not contesting that the fuel needs to be chopped up. I’m just saying that for those who aren’t very familiar with reactor internals – which is most of the population – it’s not obvious that the fuel swells and gets jammed. So that particular line of reasoning as to *why* it needs to be chopped doesn’t naturally follow for most people.
From a world-nuclear.org website:Chemistry of PurexThe used fuel is *chopped up* and dissolved in hot concentrated nitric acid. The first stage separates the uranium and plutonium in the aqueous nitric acid stream from the fission products and minor actinides by a countercurrent solvent extraction process” using tributyl phosphate dissolved in kerosene or dodecane. In a pulsed column uranium and plutonium enter the organic phase while the fission products and other elements remain in the aqueous raffinate.In a second pulsed column uranium is separated from plutonium by reduction with excess U4+ added to the aqueous stream. Plutonium is then transferred to the aqueous phase while the mixture of U4+ and U6+ remains in the organic phase. It is then stripped from the organic solvent with dilute nitric acid.The plutonium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation then subject to an oxalate precipitation process followed by calcination to produce PuO2 in powder form. The uranium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation and calcined to produce UO3 in powder form. It is then converted to UO2 product by reduction in hydrogen.””Now that is the traditional way to do it.”””
Yes but now you are dealing with nuclear chemistry. Yes that’s a thing.
And the fuel pellets swell because you are transmuting solid oxide fuel in to gas particles. Xe, Kr, Cs, not to mention transmuting U to Cs, SR. So the pellets distort because they start off as mostly snug solids and then you turn parts of them in to gasses. Actually pretty cool from a material perspective. We don’t usually think that the atomic composition of something changes and that this change distorts a physical shape.
This would be inherently safe. What is called “walk away safe” meaning you can just turn it off and leave the plant alone for a year with no problems. This could be quite cheap. Fuel is actually quite abundant. Much respect to Rod Adams but one serious drawback to CO2 cooled reactors is that they operate at extremely high pressures and temperatures. This results in a good deal of engineering ($) to handle the case of a leak (which is called a depressurization event). Salt reactors operate near atmospheric pressure which reduces the size of a reactor building. Smaller buildings mean smaller nuclear islands which are earthquake proof, airplane proof, etc. Smaller nuclear islands mean much cheaper construction costs and this leads to lower reactor prices. Cheaper reactor prices directly translate to cheaper electricity costs.
Yes but now you are dealing with nuclear chemistry. Yes that’s a thing.
And the fuel pellets swell because you are transmuting solid oxide fuel in to gas particles. Xe Kr Cs not to mention transmuting U to Cs SR.So the pellets distort because they start off as mostly snug solids and then you turn parts of them in to gasses.Actually pretty cool from a material perspective. We don’t usually think that the atomic composition of something changes and that this change distorts a physical shape.
This would be inherently safe. What is called walk away safe”” meaning you can just turn it off and leave the plant alone for a year with no problems.This could be quite cheap. Fuel is actually quite abundant.Much respect to Rod Adams but one serious drawback to CO2 cooled reactors is that they operate at extremely high pressures and temperatures. This results in a good deal of engineering ($) to handle the case of a leak (which is called a depressurization event).Salt reactors operate near atmospheric pressure which reduces the size of a reactor building. Smaller buildings mean smaller nuclear islands which are earthquake proof”” airplane proof”” etc. Smaller nuclear islands mean much cheaper construction costs and this leads to lower reactor prices. Cheaper reactor prices directly translate to cheaper electricity costs.”””
Ed, point me to some public domain references for your salt fluid mechanical properties: density vs. composition vs. temp and heat capacity vs. temp, viscosity, etc… something like MATPRO.
CO2 reacts with graphite at the high temperatures that would be useful. I hate graphite as a moderator – comes with so many compromises.
Yeah, brayton cycle works all day long… it just doesn’t work well with turbine inlet temperatures less than 1700C and there aren’t any materials that can operate at such an average temperature without degrading, however quickly or slowly, and releasing nasty stuff that chraps up the whole machine. Note that I mention ‘average temperature’. You typically can’t help but have a peak to average heat rate of at least 1.4 in a reactor – like there is a streamline through the reactor that is adding 140% of the heat in the average channel. There will typically be a spot making about 200% of the average heat rate. That is the spot that erodes first. I like Rod Adams’ idea – N2 as a working fluid can draw a lot from aero engine design (because air is basically N2), but it activates and makes carbon14 which has to be contained. Also, bearings are a problem in nuclear heated turbines – normal lubricants will find their way to the core and coke up the core (cement it). Pebble fuels make dust. Some problems, but MOSTLY the problem with brayton cycle is that fuel temperatures can’t be made high enough to heat the turbine like kerosene does so well in jets.
Ed point me to some public domain references for your salt fluid mechanical properties: density vs. composition vs. temp and heat capacity vs. temp viscosity etc… something like MATPRO.
CO2 reacts with graphite at the high temperatures that would be useful.I hate graphite as a moderator – comes with so many compromises.
Yeah brayton cycle works all day long… it just doesn’t work well with turbine inlet temperatures less than 1700C and there aren’t any materials that can operate at such an average temperature without degrading however quickly or slowly and releasing nasty stuff that chraps up the whole machine. Note that I mention ‘average temperature’. You typically can’t help but have a peak to average heat rate of at least 1.4 in a reactor – like there is a streamline through the reactor that is adding 140{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the heat in the average channel. There will typically be a spot making about 200{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the average heat rate. That is the spot that erodes first. I like Rod Adams’ idea – N2 as a working fluid can draw a lot from aero engine design (because air is basically N2) but it activates and makes carbon14 which has to be contained. Also bearings are a problem in nuclear heated turbines – normal lubricants will find their way to the core and coke up the core (cement it). Pebble fuels make dust. Some problems but MOSTLY the problem with brayton cycle is that fuel temperatures can’t be made high enough to heat the turbine like kerosene does so well in jets.
I’m guessing the reaction is CO2 (plus) C –> 2 CO, so theoretically, CO shouldn’t react. It has a similar heat capacity (29 J/K*mol for CO vs 37 for CO2), and a lower critical point at 35 atm, -140 C (vs 72 atm, 31 C for CO2), so it may be a suitable replacement. But it’s more reactive with some other materials, usually acting as a reducing agent. The biggest issue is that at the relevant temperatures it’ll likely oxidize to CO2 unless air and water can be excluded. Maybe a double loop can be used, where CO takes away heat from the reactor in a closed loop, and passes it to CO2 via a heat exchanger. Then the CO2 is fed to the turbines.
I’m guessing the reaction is CO2 (plus) C –> 2 CO so theoretically CO shouldn’t react. It has a similar heat capacity (29 J/K*mol for CO vs 37 for CO2) and a lower critical point at 35 atm -140 C (vs 72 atm 31 C for CO2) so it may be a suitable replacement. But it’s more reactive with some other materials usually acting as a reducing agent.The biggest issue is that at the relevant temperatures it’ll likely oxidize to CO2 unless air and water can be excluded. Maybe a double loop can be used where CO takes away heat from the reactor in a closed loop and passes it to CO2 via a heat exchanger. Then the CO2 is fed to the turbines.
Wouldn’t generally expect *oxidation* from CO, since it’s normally a reducing agent. But I guess oxidation plus sooting (M plus CO –> MO plus C) might be possible under some conditions. But usually the carbon is also a reductant (producing CO and CO2).
Here is a partial comment from a user name Jeremy Owston on Atomic insights: “With regards to marrying a turbine to a nuclear reactor, CO2 turbines in a direct cycle are not a particularly good fit. The reason being that CO2 tends to break down to Carbon Monoxide freeing oxygen when exposed to radiation inside the reactor core, a problem which gets worse as temperature and pressures rise. This creates oxidation issues in the core from both from the CO and free O. Higher the temperature and pressure the worse the problem. The AGR’s in the UK which use CO2 coolant manage this issue by a very complicated flow path (creating a very large expensive and low power density reactor) to keep the carbon moderator at temperatures around 300 degrees and only allowing the hottest CO2 to pass through the fuel assemblies which are conventional fuel pins with SS cladding to protect the cladding from corrosion. CO2 as a HTGR coolant is incompatible with a carbon moderator and fuel (BeO might be a possibility but its cost is prohibitive) and even when this is removed at high temperatures the corrosion problems are not insignificant.”
Notice how the grant money is for the hydraulic modeling aspect; this is because the fluid properties for whatever salt concoction are not readily available and neither are empirical heat transfer correlations… fluids like water sodium lead glycol air and petroleum have volumes of information available for models. this money is for a good cause: to further the knowledge base. Notice however the money is not for fuel cycle evaluation because another one of them would be irrelevant. Fanboy readers love to hear about fuel cycle and recycling fuel; they are not the limiting issue. Hydraulics isn’t the limiting issue either but like I said that’s money well spent. Corrosion in radiological Hazard are the limiting issues… fuel handling storage etc.
Wouldn’t generally expect *oxidation* from CO, since it’s normally a reducing agent. But I guess oxidation plus sooting (M plus CO –> MO plus C) might be possible under some conditions. But usually the carbon is also a reductant (producing CO and CO2).
Wouldn’t generally expect *oxidation* from CO since it’s normally a reducing agent. But I guess oxidation plus sooting (M plus CO –> MO plus C) might be possible under some conditions. But usually the carbon is also a reductant (producing CO and CO2).
Notice how the grant money is for the hydraulic modeling aspect; this is because the fluid properties for whatever salt concoction are not readily available and neither are empirical heat transfer correlations… fluids like water, sodium, lead, glycol, air and petroleum have volumes of information available for models. this money is for a good cause: to further the knowledge base. Notice however, the money is not for fuel cycle evaluation, because another one of them would be irrelevant. Fanboy readers love to hear about fuel cycle and recycling fuel; they are not the limiting issue. Hydraulics isn’t the limiting issue either, but like I said that’s money well spent. Corrosion in radiological Hazard are the limiting issues… fuel handling, storage, etc.
Notice how the grant money is for the hydraulic modeling aspect; this is because the fluid properties for whatever salt concoction are not readily available and neither are empirical heat transfer correlations… fluids like water sodium lead glycol air and petroleum have volumes of information available for models. this money is for a good cause: to further the knowledge base. Notice however the money is not for fuel cycle evaluation because another one of them would be irrelevant. Fanboy readers love to hear about fuel cycle and recycling fuel; they are not the limiting issue. Hydraulics isn’t the limiting issue either but like I said that’s money well spent. Corrosion in radiological Hazard are the limiting issues… fuel handling storage etc.
I’m guessing the reaction is CO2 (plus) C –> 2 CO, so theoretically, CO shouldn’t react. It has a similar heat capacity (29 J/K*mol for CO vs 37 for CO2), and a lower critical point at 35 atm, -140 C (vs 72 atm, 31 C for CO2), so it may be a suitable replacement. But it’s more reactive with some other materials, usually acting as a reducing agent. The biggest issue is that at the relevant temperatures it’ll likely oxidize to CO2 unless air and water can be excluded. Maybe a double loop can be used, where CO takes away heat from the reactor in a closed loop, and passes it to CO2 via a heat exchanger. Then the CO2 is fed to the turbines.
I’m guessing the reaction is CO2 (plus) C –> 2 CO so theoretically CO shouldn’t react. It has a similar heat capacity (29 J/K*mol for CO vs 37 for CO2) and a lower critical point at 35 atm -140 C (vs 72 atm 31 C for CO2) so it may be a suitable replacement. But it’s more reactive with some other materials usually acting as a reducing agent.The biggest issue is that at the relevant temperatures it’ll likely oxidize to CO2 unless air and water can be excluded. Maybe a double loop can be used where CO takes away heat from the reactor in a closed loop and passes it to CO2 via a heat exchanger. Then the CO2 is fed to the turbines.
Ed, point me to some public domain references for your salt fluid mechanical properties: density vs. composition vs. temp and heat capacity vs. temp, viscosity, etc… something like MATPRO.
Ed point me to some public domain references for your salt fluid mechanical properties: density vs. composition vs. temp and heat capacity vs. temp viscosity etc… something like MATPRO.
CO2 reacts with graphite at the high temperatures that would be useful. I hate graphite as a moderator – comes with so many compromises.
CO2 reacts with graphite at the high temperatures that would be useful.I hate graphite as a moderator – comes with so many compromises.
Yeah, brayton cycle works all day long… it just doesn’t work well with turbine inlet temperatures less than 1700C and there aren’t any materials that can operate at such an average temperature without degrading, however quickly or slowly, and releasing nasty stuff that chraps up the whole machine. Note that I mention ‘average temperature’. You typically can’t help but have a peak to average heat rate of at least 1.4 in a reactor – like there is a streamline through the reactor that is adding 140% of the heat in the average channel. There will typically be a spot making about 200% of the average heat rate. That is the spot that erodes first. I like Rod Adams’ idea – N2 as a working fluid can draw a lot from aero engine design (because air is basically N2), but it activates and makes carbon14 which has to be contained. Also, bearings are a problem in nuclear heated turbines – normal lubricants will find their way to the core and coke up the core (cement it). Pebble fuels make dust. Some problems, but MOSTLY the problem with brayton cycle is that fuel temperatures can’t be made high enough to heat the turbine like kerosene does so well in jets.
Yeah brayton cycle works all day long… it just doesn’t work well with turbine inlet temperatures less than 1700C and there aren’t any materials that can operate at such an average temperature without degrading however quickly or slowly and releasing nasty stuff that chraps up the whole machine. Note that I mention ‘average temperature’. You typically can’t help but have a peak to average heat rate of at least 1.4 in a reactor – like there is a streamline through the reactor that is adding 140{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the heat in the average channel. There will typically be a spot making about 200{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the average heat rate. That is the spot that erodes first. I like Rod Adams’ idea – N2 as a working fluid can draw a lot from aero engine design (because air is basically N2) but it activates and makes carbon14 which has to be contained. Also bearings are a problem in nuclear heated turbines – normal lubricants will find their way to the core and coke up the core (cement it). Pebble fuels make dust. Some problems but MOSTLY the problem with brayton cycle is that fuel temperatures can’t be made high enough to heat the turbine like kerosene does so well in jets.
Wouldn’t generally expect *oxidation* from CO, since it’s normally a reducing agent. But I guess oxidation plus sooting (M plus CO –> MO plus C) might be possible under some conditions. But usually the carbon is also a reductant (producing CO and CO2).
Here is a partial comment from a user name Jeremy Owston on Atomic insights:
“With regards to marrying a turbine to a nuclear reactor, CO2 turbines in a direct cycle are not a particularly good fit. The reason being that CO2 tends to break down to Carbon Monoxide freeing oxygen when exposed to radiation inside the reactor core, a problem which gets worse as temperature and pressures rise. This creates oxidation issues in the core from both from the CO and free O. Higher the temperature and pressure the worse the problem. The AGR’s in the UK which use CO2 coolant manage this issue by a very complicated flow path (creating a very large expensive and low power density reactor) to keep the carbon moderator at temperatures around 300 degrees and only allowing the hottest CO2 to pass through the fuel assemblies which are conventional fuel pins with SS cladding to protect the cladding from corrosion. CO2 as a HTGR coolant is incompatible with a carbon moderator and fuel (BeO might be a possibility but its cost is prohibitive) and even when this is removed at high temperatures the corrosion problems are not insignificant.”
Notice how the grant money is for the hydraulic modeling aspect; this is because the fluid properties for whatever salt concoction are not readily available and neither are empirical heat transfer correlations… fluids like water, sodium, lead, glycol, air and petroleum have volumes of information available for models.
this money is for a good cause: to further the knowledge base. Notice however, the money is not for fuel cycle evaluation, because another one of them would be irrelevant. Fanboy readers love to hear about fuel cycle and recycling fuel; they are not the limiting issue. Hydraulics isn’t the limiting issue either, but like I said that’s money well spent. Corrosion in radiological Hazard are the limiting issues… fuel handling, storage, etc.
I’m guessing the reaction is CO2 (plus) C –> 2 CO, so theoretically, CO shouldn’t react. It has a similar heat capacity (29 J/K*mol for CO vs 37 for CO2), and a lower critical point at 35 atm, -140 C (vs 72 atm, 31 C for CO2), so it may be a suitable replacement. But it’s more reactive with some other materials, usually acting as a reducing agent.
The biggest issue is that at the relevant temperatures it’ll likely oxidize to CO2 unless air and water can be excluded. Maybe a double loop can be used, where CO takes away heat from the reactor in a closed loop, and passes it to CO2 via a heat exchanger. Then the CO2 is fed to the turbines.
Ed, point me to some public domain references for your salt fluid mechanical properties: density vs. composition vs. temp and heat capacity vs. temp, viscosity, etc… something like MATPRO.
CO2 reacts with graphite at the high temperatures that would be useful.
I hate graphite as a moderator – comes with so many compromises.
Yeah, brayton cycle works all day long… it just doesn’t work well with turbine inlet temperatures less than 1700C and there aren’t any materials that can operate at such an average temperature without degrading, however quickly or slowly, and releasing nasty stuff that chraps up the whole machine. Note that I mention ‘average temperature’. You typically can’t help but have a peak to average heat rate of at least 1.4 in a reactor – like there is a streamline through the reactor that is adding 140% of the heat in the average channel. There will typically be a spot making about 200% of the average heat rate. That is the spot that erodes first. I like Rod Adams’ idea – N2 as a working fluid can draw a lot from aero engine design (because air is basically N2), but it activates and makes carbon14 which has to be contained. Also, bearings are a problem in nuclear heated turbines – normal lubricants will find their way to the core and coke up the core (cement it). Pebble fuels make dust. Some problems, but MOSTLY the problem with brayton cycle is that fuel temperatures can’t be made high enough to heat the turbine like kerosene does so well in jets.
Yes but now you are dealing with nuclear chemistry. Yes that’s a thing.
Yes but now you are dealing with nuclear chemistry. Yes that’s a thing.
And the fuel pellets swell because you are transmuting solid oxide fuel in to gas particles. Xe, Kr, Cs, not to mention transmuting U to Cs, SR. So the pellets distort because they start off as mostly snug solids and then you turn parts of them in to gasses. Actually pretty cool from a material perspective. We don’t usually think that the atomic composition of something changes and that this change distorts a physical shape.
And the fuel pellets swell because you are transmuting solid oxide fuel in to gas particles. Xe Kr Cs not to mention transmuting U to Cs SR.So the pellets distort because they start off as mostly snug solids and then you turn parts of them in to gasses.Actually pretty cool from a material perspective. We don’t usually think that the atomic composition of something changes and that this change distorts a physical shape.
This would be inherently safe. What is called “walk away safe” meaning you can just turn it off and leave the plant alone for a year with no problems. This could be quite cheap. Fuel is actually quite abundant. Much respect to Rod Adams but one serious drawback to CO2 cooled reactors is that they operate at extremely high pressures and temperatures. This results in a good deal of engineering ($) to handle the case of a leak (which is called a depressurization event). Salt reactors operate near atmospheric pressure which reduces the size of a reactor building. Smaller buildings mean smaller nuclear islands which are earthquake proof, airplane proof, etc. Smaller nuclear islands mean much cheaper construction costs and this leads to lower reactor prices. Cheaper reactor prices directly translate to cheaper electricity costs.
This would be inherently safe. What is called walk away safe”” meaning you can just turn it off and leave the plant alone for a year with no problems.This could be quite cheap. Fuel is actually quite abundant.Much respect to Rod Adams but one serious drawback to CO2 cooled reactors is that they operate at extremely high pressures and temperatures. This results in a good deal of engineering ($) to handle the case of a leak (which is called a depressurization event).Salt reactors operate near atmospheric pressure which reduces the size of a reactor building. Smaller buildings mean smaller nuclear islands which are earthquake proof”” airplane proof”” etc. Smaller nuclear islands mean much cheaper construction costs and this leads to lower reactor prices. Cheaper reactor prices directly translate to cheaper electricity costs.”””
Yes but now you are dealing with nuclear chemistry. Yes that’s a thing.
And the fuel pellets swell because you are transmuting solid oxide fuel in to gas particles. Xe, Kr, Cs, not to mention transmuting U to Cs, SR.
So the pellets distort because they start off as mostly snug solids and then you turn parts of them in to gasses.
Actually pretty cool from a material perspective. We don’t usually think that the atomic composition of something changes and that this change distorts a physical shape.
This would be inherently safe. What is called “walk away safe” meaning you can just turn it off and leave the plant alone for a year with no problems.
This could be quite cheap. Fuel is actually quite abundant.
Much respect to Rod Adams but one serious drawback to CO2 cooled reactors is that they operate at extremely high pressures and temperatures. This results in a good deal of engineering ($) to handle the case of a leak (which is called a depressurization event).
Salt reactors operate near atmospheric pressure which reduces the size of a reactor building. Smaller buildings mean smaller nuclear islands which are earthquake proof, airplane proof, etc. Smaller nuclear islands mean much cheaper construction costs and this leads to lower reactor prices. Cheaper reactor prices directly translate to cheaper electricity costs.
Thanks for the details. From my chemistry knowledge, I know that chopping up the material increases the surface to volume ratio. This increases the reaction rate, since solids react mostly at the surface. Reaction rates are important in industry, which is why a lot of money is invested in developing catalysts. So I’m not contesting that the fuel needs to be chopped up. I’m just saying that for those who aren’t very familiar with reactor internals – which is most of the population – it’s not obvious that the fuel swells and gets jammed. So that particular line of reasoning as to *why* it needs to be chopped, doesn’t naturally follow for most people.
Thanks for the details. From my chemistry knowledge I know that chopping up the material increases the surface to volume ratio. This increases the reaction rate since solids react mostly at the surface. Reaction rates are important in industry which is why a lot of money is invested in developing catalysts.So I’m not contesting that the fuel needs to be chopped up. I’m just saying that for those who aren’t very familiar with reactor internals – which is most of the population – it’s not obvious that the fuel swells and gets jammed. So that particular line of reasoning as to *why* it needs to be chopped doesn’t naturally follow for most people.
From a world-nuclear.org website: “Chemistry of Purex The used fuel is *chopped up* and dissolved in hot concentrated nitric acid. The first stage separates the uranium and plutonium in the aqueous nitric acid stream from the fission products and minor actinides by a countercurrent solvent extraction process, using tributyl phosphate dissolved in kerosene or dodecane. In a pulsed column uranium and plutonium enter the organic phase while the fission products and other elements remain in the aqueous raffinate.In a second pulsed column uranium is separated from plutonium by reduction with excess U4+ added to the aqueous stream. Plutonium is then transferred to the aqueous phase while the mixture of U4+ and U6+ remains in the organic phase. It is then stripped from the organic solvent with dilute nitric acid.The plutonium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation then subject to an oxalate precipitation process followed by calcination to produce PuO2 in powder form. The uranium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation and calcined to produce UO3 in powder form. It is then converted to UO2 product by reduction in hydrogen.” Now that is the traditional way to do it.
From a world-nuclear.org website:Chemistry of PurexThe used fuel is *chopped up* and dissolved in hot concentrated nitric acid. The first stage separates the uranium and plutonium in the aqueous nitric acid stream from the fission products and minor actinides by a countercurrent solvent extraction process” using tributyl phosphate dissolved in kerosene or dodecane. In a pulsed column uranium and plutonium enter the organic phase while the fission products and other elements remain in the aqueous raffinate.In a second pulsed column uranium is separated from plutonium by reduction with excess U4+ added to the aqueous stream. Plutonium is then transferred to the aqueous phase while the mixture of U4+ and U6+ remains in the organic phase. It is then stripped from the organic solvent with dilute nitric acid.The plutonium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation then subject to an oxalate precipitation process followed by calcination to produce PuO2 in powder form. The uranium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation and calcined to produce UO3 in powder form. It is then converted to UO2 product by reduction in hydrogen.””Now that is the traditional way to do it.”””
Even if one has engineering sense, the swelling part isn’t obvious to us non-nuclear types.
Even if one has engineering sense the swelling part isn’t obvious to us non-nuclear types.
Read the comments and with all fission articles, we’ll need something better than this to make fission a possibility for the future. We need tech that is inherently safe, cheap, and abundant enough. I read a Rod Adam’s article on using inert gases like CO2, or nitrogen, to carry the heat generated by U or Th operating inside a Brayton cycle plant. No water, no sodium, no atmospheric releases. Will this work? Skeptical, but its seems a more workable fix.
Read the comments and with all fission articles we’ll need something better than this to make fission a possibility for the future. We need tech that is inherently safe cheap and abundant enough. I read a Rod Adam’s article on using inert gases like CO2 or nitrogen to carry the heat generated by U or Th operating inside a Brayton cycle plant. No water no sodium no atmospheric releases. Will this work? Skeptical but its seems a more workable fix.
Funny how some (Mark) lack engineering sense, right? Hmmm. What simple, robust, reliable process can be used to separate intensely radioactive ceramic pellets jammed in tubes? Yep, chop it up remotely. Smash it. Dump it in a big tank and dissolve it in acid. Or have Mark get in there with a can-opener and split the tubes…
Funny how some (Mark) lack engineering sense right? Hmmm. What simple robust reliable process can be used to separate intensely radioactive ceramic pellets jammed in tubes? Yep chop it up remotely. Smash it. Dump it in a big tank and dissolve it in acid.Or have Mark get in there with a can-opener and split the tubes…
Thanks for the details. From my chemistry knowledge, I know that chopping up the material increases the surface to volume ratio. This increases the reaction rate, since solids react mostly at the surface. Reaction rates are important in industry, which is why a lot of money is invested in developing catalysts.
So I’m not contesting that the fuel needs to be chopped up. I’m just saying that for those who aren’t very familiar with reactor internals – which is most of the population – it’s not obvious that the fuel swells and gets jammed. So that particular line of reasoning as to *why* it needs to be chopped, doesn’t naturally follow for most people.
From a world-nuclear.org website:
“Chemistry of Purex
The used fuel is *chopped up* and dissolved in hot concentrated nitric acid. The first stage separates the uranium and plutonium in the aqueous nitric acid stream from the fission products and minor actinides by a countercurrent solvent extraction process, using tributyl phosphate dissolved in kerosene or dodecane. In a pulsed column uranium and plutonium enter the organic phase while the fission products and other elements remain in the aqueous raffinate.In a second pulsed column uranium is separated from plutonium by reduction with excess U4+ added to the aqueous stream. Plutonium is then transferred to the aqueous phase while the mixture of U4+ and U6+ remains in the organic phase. It is then stripped from the organic solvent with dilute nitric acid.The plutonium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation then subject to an oxalate precipitation process followed by calcination to produce PuO2 in powder form. The uranium nitrate is concentrated by evaporation and calcined to produce UO3 in powder form. It is then converted to UO2 product by reduction in hydrogen.”
Now that is the traditional way to do it.
Even if one has engineering sense, the swelling part isn’t obvious to us non-nuclear types.
The oxide pellets swell during their stay in the reactor. They slide in, but I don’t think they will slide out of the tubes.
The oxide pellets swell during their stay in the reactor. They slide in but I don’t think they will slide out of the tubes.
1. we agree 2. I don’t want to send up Cs, Sr, I, Pu dissolved in salt on a rocket. Stick to fresh fuel. 3. A metric ton is 1000kg, not thousands of tons.
1. we agree2. I don’t want to send up Cs Sr I Pu dissolved in salt on a rocket. Stick to fresh fuel.3. A metric ton is 1000kg not thousands of tons.
Yep it is all a conspiracy like global warming. Especially when it dosen’t agree with the alt right sound machine.
Yep it is all a conspiracy like global warming. Especially when it dosen’t agree with the alt right sound machine.
I guess those guys at Lawrence Labs who ran MSR for years where all fools. The processes you are talking about are less complicated than fuel reprocessing which is done all the time.
I guess those guys at Lawrence Labs who ran MSR for years where all fools. The processes you are talking about are less complicated than fuel reprocessing which is done all the time.
First off they do not need to launch a few thousand tons. The need R233 as a seed and thorium and the salts that do not need to be blended before hand.
First off they do not need to launch a few thousand tons. The need R233 as a seed and thorium and the salts that do not need to be blended before hand.
Read the comments and with all fission articles, we’ll need something better than this to make fission a possibility for the future. We need tech that is inherently safe, cheap, and abundant enough. I read a Rod Adam’s article on using inert gases like CO2, or nitrogen, to carry the heat generated by U or Th operating inside a Brayton cycle plant. No water, no sodium, no atmospheric releases. Will this work? Skeptical, but its seems a more workable fix.
I don’t understand the chopping part. I thought the nuclear fuel was already in pellet form once you stripped the fuel rod cladding. I am always interested in anything that can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. I am find with a reactor that can put the waste to use.
I don’t understand the chopping part. I thought the nuclear fuel was already in pellet form once you stripped the fuel rod cladding. I am always interested in anything that can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. I am find with a reactor that can put the waste to use.
The DEEP STATE protects it’s own, and helps its own, to become super rich. You don’t think all the politicians in DC, became wealthy, on a 200k per year salary do you? Considering DC is one of the more EXPENSIVE places to live, and they have to “maintain” a residence in their home district (cough cough P.O. box). Their salary is chump change, compared to lobbyist money, money on kickbacks, insider trading and what not.
The DEEP STATE protects it’s own and helps its own to become super rich.You don’t think all the politicians in DC became wealthy on a 200k per year salary do you?Considering DC is one of the more EXPENSIVE places to live and they have to maintain”” aresidence in their home district (cough cough P.O. box).Their salary is chump change”” compared to lobbyist money money on kickbacks”” insider tradingand what not.”””
Shoot, I’d have my own research.
Shoot I’d have my own research.
If I had won the 1.6 billion lottery I would have probably funded this research.
If I had won the 1.6 billion lottery I would have probably funded this research.
Space version obviously would not be launched with SNF. I love nukes, I love rockets, I love nuke powered rockets and even I’m not crazy to launch a few metric tons of SNF dissolved in salt.
Space version obviously would not be launched with SNF.I love nukes I love rockets I love nuke powered rockets and even I’m not crazy to launch a few metric tons of SNF dissolved in salt.
Funny how some (Mark) lack engineering sense, right? Hmmm. What simple, robust, reliable process can be used to separate intensely radioactive ceramic pellets jammed in tubes? Yep, chop it up remotely. Smash it. Dump it in a big tank and dissolve it in acid.
Or have Mark get in there with a can-opener and split the tubes…
I’m like the only guy that treats this DOE grant stuff like others follow the Kardashians. I don’t know why it is so interesting to me to try to understand why some concepts get funding and others don’t. If you dig deep enough, there is drama there; it’s not quite Kardashian grade, but it is there. Influence. Buddies. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Jobs programs for the national labs drama.
I’m like the only guy that treats this DOE grant stuff like others follow the Kardashians. I don’t know why it is so interesting to me to try to understand why some concepts get funding and others don’t. If you dig deep enough there is drama there; it’s not quite Kardashian grade but it is there. Influence. Buddies. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Jobs programs for the national labs drama.
Oh, I get it… Ed has old Navy contacts and friends. Now it makes sense; he did shakedowns for NR. I was wondering what connections he had to get the $2.6M from the DOE. I was also wondering how Kairos power has real funding (just hired my unqualified friend/acquaintance as a “senior lead licensing engineer” or something over there) – then I found out that the former secretary of energy Moniz and his Berkely friend and Kairos lead, Per Peterson, were bros from the Osama administration – sat on steering committees together. Maybe had mimosas on occasion. I am learning that I should have attempted to cozy up to the government all these years instead of attempting to stay out of it’s employ (kinda libertarian leaning).
Oh I get it… Ed has old Navy contacts and friends. Now it makes sense; he did shakedowns for NR. I was wondering what connections he had to get the $2.6M from the DOE. I was also wondering how Kairos power has real funding (just hired my unqualified friend/acquaintance as a senior lead licensing engineer”” or something over there) – then I found out that the former secretary of energy Moniz and his Berkely friend and Kairos lead”” Per Peterson”” were bros from the Osama administration – sat on steering committees together. Maybe had mimosas on occasion.I am learning that I should have attempted to cozy up to the government all these years instead of attempting to stay out of it’s employ (kinda libertarian leaning).”””
IKR. All we gotta do is chop up the spent fuel in a giant glove box and then dissolve the rubble and scrap metal in acid, do numerous extractions and conversions and voila, all you said happens and we get barrels of aqueous waste to bury in Nevada or Idaho. and your spaceship needs to be at 1000C to radiate the waste heat – it’s ideal.
IKR. All we gotta do is chop up the spent fuel in a giant glove box and then dissolve the rubble and scrap metal in acid do numerous extractions and conversions and voila all you said happens and we get barrels of aqueous waste to bury in Nevada or Idaho.and your spaceship needs to be at 1000C to radiate the waste heat – it’s ideal.
love it,will get rid of spent fuels inc nukes get heat and electric as well could even fit into spaceship
love itwill get rid of spent fuels inc nukes get heat and electric as well could even fit into spaceship
The oxide pellets swell during their stay in the reactor. They slide in, but I don’t think they will slide out of the tubes.
1. we agree
2. I don’t want to send up Cs, Sr, I, Pu dissolved in salt on a rocket. Stick to fresh fuel.
3. A metric ton is 1000kg, not thousands of tons.
Yep it is all a conspiracy like global warming. Especially when it dosen’t agree with the alt right sound machine.
I guess those guys at Lawrence Labs who ran MSR for years where all fools. The processes you are talking about are less complicated than fuel reprocessing which is done all the time.
First off they do not need to launch a few thousand tons. The need R233 as a seed and thorium and the salts that do not need to be blended before hand.
I don’t understand the chopping part. I thought the nuclear fuel was already in pellet form once you stripped the fuel rod cladding.
I am always interested in anything that can reduce the amount of nuclear waste. I am find with a reactor that can put the waste to use.
The DEEP STATE protects it’s own, and helps its own, to become super rich.
You don’t think all the politicians in DC, became wealthy, on a 200k per year salary do you?
Considering DC is one of the more EXPENSIVE places to live, and they have to “maintain” a
residence in their home district (cough cough P.O. box).
Their salary is chump change, compared to lobbyist money, money on kickbacks, insider trading
and what not.
Shoot, I’d have my own research.
If I had won the 1.6 billion lottery I would have probably funded this research.
Space version obviously would not be launched with SNF.
I love nukes, I love rockets, I love nuke powered rockets and even I’m not crazy to launch a few metric tons of SNF dissolved in salt.
I’m like the only guy that treats this DOE grant stuff like others follow the Kardashians. I don’t know why it is so interesting to me to try to understand why some concepts get funding and others don’t. If you dig deep enough, there is drama there; it’s not quite Kardashian grade, but it is there. Influence. Buddies. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS. Jobs programs for the national labs drama.
Oh, I get it… Ed has old Navy contacts and friends. Now it makes sense; he did shakedowns for NR. I was wondering what connections he had to get the $2.6M from the DOE.
I was also wondering how Kairos power has real funding (just hired my unqualified friend/acquaintance as a “senior lead licensing engineer” or something over there) – then I found out that the former secretary of energy Moniz and his Berkely friend and Kairos lead, Per Peterson, were bros from the Osama administration – sat on steering committees together. Maybe had mimosas on occasion.
I am learning that I should have attempted to cozy up to the government all these years instead of attempting to stay out of it’s employ (kinda libertarian leaning).
IKR. All we gotta do is chop up the spent fuel in a giant glove box and then dissolve the rubble and scrap metal in acid, do numerous extractions and conversions and voila, all you said happens and we get barrels of aqueous waste to bury in Nevada or Idaho.
and your spaceship needs to be at 1000C to radiate the waste heat – it’s ideal.
love it,will get rid of spent fuels inc nukes get heat and electric as well could even fit into spaceship