Live data from Hacker News

Molten Salt Reactors

whatisnuclear.com

31–40 of 122 posts

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#31
>Complex chemical plant

This is not a disadvantage for all MSRs. Only breeders need chemical plant. Not fair to compare a solid-fuel burner to liquid-fuel breeder.

Let us compare liquid fuel breeder vs. solid-fuel breeder: Reprocessing solid-fuel involves more complex chemical plant with physical mechanisms to declad and convert solid-fuel to a processable liquid. Fabricate processed liquid to solid-fuel and put it back in the reactor. Solid fuel breeders have additional physical and chemical processes/steps.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#32
The elephant in the room with any kind of fission reactor is that they are going to need a lot of security. Even when the fuel and waste product is not weapons grade uranium, it's still highly radioactive and a great source of material for a dirty bomb. Basically anything that goes boom combined with small amounts of radioactive material and a bit of wind is a great way to depopulate e.g. large cities. So, having lots of small molten salt reactors all over the planet, which seems like the key selling point, is not a great idea from that point of view. Having them in or near any kind of conflict zone would be super risky. And according to this article there is actually some weapons grade uranium being produced as well which makes this even more problematic.

The security aspect would make this a lot more expensive than it already is and cost is already on the high side even before you consider that. This is a problem with traditional reactors as well but they have the advantage that they are huge facilities and that there are only a handful of them; so securing them is relatively easy.

People are suggesting this as complementing renewables but the cold hard truth is that renewables are already dirt cheap and on track to continue to drop in price by magnitudes for the next decades. That includes battery storage as well. Already quite cheap, also dropping in price, and typically already factored into e.g. new solar bids that are killing competing bids for coal and gas plants (or in some cases shutting them down prematurely).

Even at the current prices, that's a problem for any kind of nuclear solutions being contemplated right now. At the low end of the spectrum, we are talking 2 cents per kwh currently. Imagine this dropping to something like half a cent or even less. At those prices, the security alone would make nuclear too expensive probably. A 1 mw facility would have basically be generating only about 500-2000$ worth of energy per hour but only at peak demand. There's no guarantee prices won't drop way below that either. Any kind of operational overhead would be a problem. Needing 24x7 intense security would be very undesirable.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#33

The largest reserves of thorium exist in India and China - two of the most energy hungry and polluting economies. One is on the UN Security Council and the other has a unique waiver from the US Congress on proliferation - so fissile material production is not the primary concern. Both India and China have massive deployments of renewable energy, yet the demand for energy is outstripping projected build-out. LTFR is g…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium

From there it seems like India, Australia & the US all have large thorium reserves.

There is certainly heaps of it.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#34
post #5

The usual quip in the industry is that the remote maintenance is such a complicated robotics problem. that which ever company is able to solve it, is better off converting to a robotics company and just drive Kuka, Fanuc and ABB out of business.

Is it a hard robotics problem or a hard radiation-hardening problem?

Mostly hard robotics side. This is about replacing people and you don’t send people into heavy radiation areas. It’s like cleaning skyscraper windows, the overhead of keeping people safe is significantly more of an issue than just washing windows.

Decontamination and radiation mostly make it more expensive rather than more difficult.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#35
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is a great compliment to photovoltaic. One of the reasons Japan was able to go large on PV (and cause prices to come down for the rest of us) was their huge pumped water infrastructure that had been built for nuclear. One problem with nuclear was all the excess power created at night, so they would pump water uphill at night and then run it down to generate power at the daytime peaks. Of course with PV the ti…

Nuclear is not a great complement to PV, if the PV is cheap. Cheap PV expands until there is no residual baseload demand left. At that point, nuclear power plants cannot maintain high capacity factor and their economics go all to hell.

Nuclear has effectively zero unit cost, it's all fixed cost. Once you build the reactor, you generate at full capacity all day and night and take whatever the market rate is.

That means you get paid less during the day when solar is the cheapest provider, but you still match its price and supply your full generation capacity even then, because you can, because anything is more than nothing and the incremental generation cost is effectively zero. Then you make more at night when solar requires storage, and even more still whenever the day was overcast and energy prices had to rise high enough to suppress demand enough that the depleted storage isn't fully exhausted before sunrise.

The capacity factor is always 100%, it's the price you get at any given time that varies. But price variability in itself is no problem either, as long as the average price is above average cost. And that average includes not only times that it rains for multiple days in a row, but also winter, and that with consideration of people also needing to switch from oil and gas to electric heat.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#36
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very disappointed, expecting you to show something about storage costs, but you just handwave that part, even though you go into very specific numbers and extrapolation for the actual pv's. May I suggest this is a major blindspot and probably where it completely falls down?

I don't know enough about storage costs to calculate them well, although several recent low-priced PV power-purchase agreements have included storage components, including the one we're talking about here. I look forward to seeing your calculations!

Perhaps this is hard to calculate because it's unbounded?

Typically:

Known costs for (anything) Maybe there's something wrong with my math?

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#37
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT studies suggest that deeply decarbonizing is actually cheaper when you do some nuclear alongside your variable renewables + storage [1]. The cost of filling those seasonal solar gaps and 10-day wind gaps gets pretty large without nukes. [1] https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon...

Studies that purport to show that nuclear has a place due to inability of renewables to fill those gaps are usually assuming renewables + short term storage cannot fill those gaps. But renewables + short term storage + hydrogen can, and probably more cheaply than a system with nuclear reactors.

What's hydrogen supposed to add? It's just a type of storage, and probably not even the cheapest one.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#38

The elephant in the room with any kind of fission reactor is that they are going to need a lot of security. Even when the fuel and waste product is not weapons grade uranium, it's still highly radioactive and a great source of material for a dirty bomb. Basically anything that goes boom combined with small amounts of radioactive material and a bit of wind is a great way to depopulate e.g. large cities. So, having lot…

Are you suggesting that variable renewables plus batteries will approach prices that are... too cheap to meter?

Looking at current cost VRE trends, when variable sources contribute up to 4% of world energy, and surrounded by massive amounts of cheap but high-carbon natural gas, and assuming that the trends will just continue exponentially downward without serious complication, is optimistic.

Cost of integration of variable sources plus batteries is expected in many studies and somewhat intuitively to skyrocket as market penetration increases. When you have enough VRE to cover 100% including the big evening peak with batteries during a clear summer day, the extra generation you build to fill the other gaps gets curtailed. But you have to fill daily and then seasonal gaps, worldwide, including heat in winter and worldwide transportation (not just electricity). Buying that battery that is only even needed at all every third day is 3x the price, yet we prefer if the power doesn't brownout with this frequency. This is difficult. Already we're seeing NIBMYism in large solar installations in california and with transmissions lines. That gets worse with scale.

Nuclear today is a hedge against the possibility that deeply carbonizing with variable renewables + storage at world scale will be harder than we all think and hope it will be.

That said, nuclear certainly needs to drop capital and O&M cost dramatically if it wants to play the game. And security is indeed a big factor in this. Its competition in the small-footprint dispatchable world is natural gas with full CCS, which is also looking pretty cheap.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#39
>Tritium production: If lithium is used in the salt, tritium will be produced,

Not a disadvantage for all MSRs. Both lithium and beryllium can be avoided. FLiBe is required for efficient MSRs and MSBR.

>Mobile fission products

It is the only disadvantage common to all molten-salt reactors and all fluid-fuel reactors. Pumps and pipes have to handle a hot radioactive liquid.

> Material Degradation

Common to all nuclear reactors, solar, coal boiler tubes, etc. Components used in reactor core do not last long. MSRs dispose nickel tubes and LWRs dispose zirconium tubes and uranium.

>Proliferation...The problem with MSRs, then, is that the fuel is already completely cut open and melted. >it will be difficult for the IAEA to distinguish plate-out losses from actual proliferative losses.

The fuel salt loop can be sealed tamper-proof. The entire fuel salt loop is analogous to a fuel assembly. Weigh the entire fuel salt loop. Vapor pressure of actinide-halide salt is very low at operating temperatures. Actinides don't move out of this loop.

Re: Molten Salt Reactors

#40

I thought LIFTR was the coolest thing ever. MSRs could have revolutionized power generation... about two decades ago. Solar/Wind/Storage are beating almost everything. Everything they aren't... they will, very soon. It's possible that MSRs could be scaled down and their liquid nature means that the reactor could simply be replaced on a schedule and the entire old reactor "reprocessed". But the investment won't be the…

Also you can also molten salt with the sun, which is done with way fewer moving parts.
Post reply on HN