Live data from Hacker News

Transatomic Power

transatomicpower.com

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Transatomic Power

#11
post #3

The bigger problem than the corrosion is the inability to inspect the system in an efficient way. In a regulated nuclear industry, not knowing the status of the system means it will not be allowed.

Given that the system has intrinsic safety built in, I'm not sure why regular inspection would be required.

Perhaps the NRC does require regular inspections for existing plants, but none of those existing plants are failsafe are they? If something starts to go wrong, it can snowball very quickly into a much worse situation.

With a MSR the worst-case scenario (short of terrorism) is that you empty into the dump tank until you sort the problem out and restart. If you make the entire facility's floor the dump tank then inspections are going to be rather redundant. Except perhaps to ensure that the dump tank is intact. But that can be made fairly easy I think.

Re: Transatomic Power

#13

I wish they would be more up-front about the specifics of their technical proposal and how it compares to other proposals, since it was not at all obvious to me at first glance. What I think they're actually proposing (correct me if I'm wrong): a uranium molten salt fast breeder reactor that drives a steam turbine. So, much more ambitious than what's currently on the market, with better fuel utilization. As compared…

To get this straight, when they indicate 96% utilization of the uranium, they don't mean converting 96% of the total energy to electricity, as it is assumed that some will be lost along the way, right?

If the above statement is true, what happens to the remaining 4% of the energy in the uranium? Is it just not effective to have it in the molten salt, so the entire batch is replaced? Or does this happen 'on the fly' so to speak?

Re: Transatomic Power

#15
"Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value."

R. Buckminster Fuller

Re: Transatomic Power

#16
post #10

So ok, the website is cool and the technology is said to be something like 99.9999% better. This might be a stupid question but I'm no nuclear engineer not a specialist about chemistry or physics but I wonder why a such "beautiful" idea would not be already used. I've read the related wikipedia article about Molten Salt Reactors and I understand there are several problems about the technology: mostly corrosion and em…

From my understanding it comes down to part politics, part feasibility. When nuclear power first started becoming popular light water reactors were easier to make and their fuel/byproducts aligned with the production of nuclear weapons. As years went on regulation and inertia did a great job of cementing us into our old ways. Today, advances in (material) science have made producing molten salt reactors more feasible. They also seem more attractive now that the public is generally very adverse to nuclear waste and power plant failures. I'm paraphrasing what was explained to me so someone that knows more please chime in.

Kirk Sorensen has been a major advocate of molten-salt reactors and gave a great Google tech talk on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI

Re: Transatomic Power

#17
post #3

The bigger problem than the corrosion is the inability to inspect the system in an efficient way. In a regulated nuclear industry, not knowing the status of the system means it will not be allowed.

I think there is a tendency to think of fuel rods as a problem rather than the solution to a problem, which is raw spent fuel is nasty. The cheapest and easiest way to deal with spent fuel is to store it for decades while the worst of the radio-isotopes decay. Fuel rod technology allows you to do that, a molten salt design doesn't. I'm okay with this argument but is seems to bother people that you can't recover spent fuel now rather than waiting 25 years so they cast about for solutions to what is really a psychological annoyance.

See the quest for reusable launch systems like the space shuttle.

Re: Transatomic Power

#18
post #10

So ok, the website is cool and the technology is said to be something like 99.9999% better. This might be a stupid question but I'm no nuclear engineer not a specialist about chemistry or physics but I wonder why a such "beautiful" idea would not be already used. I've read the related wikipedia article about Molten Salt Reactors and I understand there are several problems about the technology: mostly corrosion and em…

I'm assuming the "Molten Salt Reactor" method is the same principle as the "Sodium Reactor" that was experimented with around 50 years ago?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment

Re: Transatomic Power

#19
I am not a nuclear physicist, but isn't this concept proven and well-understood already?

Now, a sales pitch is indeed a missing piece. Given the regulations, the nuclear industry is stuck with power plants whose designs date from decades back.

I didn't see anything about handling the waste heat though. Dumping it into rivers would be atrocious. Ingesting large amounts of water to use evaporation towers is also environmentally terrible. I hope they thought of that.

I am all for the responsible use of nuclear power. Greenpeace and the like made so much noise that the public is afraid of anything called "nuclear". The media doesn't help, either.

The result is far more deaths every year due to coal and other fossil burning. Let's do more solar and wind, sure, microgrids and other cool stuff. Nuclear can provide the baseline power and power for power-hungry industries, such as aluminium refineries.

Re: Transatomic Power

#20
they don't need to prove that it would work - that is pretty well known. What they would need to prove for the idea to make any progress toward real-world implementation is that their good economy of neutrons isn't that good as to allow say to dissolve additional amount of U-238 (widely available to almost anybody anywhere) and get Pu-239 on the other end or any similar reaction :) Their ability to consume very low-enriched U-235 isn't an advantage here as the typical reactors necessity for the high-enrichment is what blocks and allow to identify weapons programs around the world.
Post reply on HN