Live data from Hacker News

Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

world-nuclear-news.org

151–160 of 217 posts

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#151
post #148
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While at it, I never understood the worry about the plutonium surfacing in the MSR cycle. Of course it can be diverted to make nuclear warheads. But countries like the US, or France, or Russia, or China, or India already are able to produce nuclear warheads, even from plutonium extracted from more conventional reactors. I don't understand where is the risk of proliferation. Is this about international treaties and ea…

I think one fear is about the proliferation of reprocessing technology. So currently, with a traditional LWR, you buy X fuel rods, then later IAEA inspectors come by and check that those X rods are in the spent fuel pool. Reprocessing, to the very little extent it's done at all, is done by countries that already have nuclear weapons (except maybe Japan?), so the horse has already left the barn. But a MSR, at least fo…

Are there any MSR designs that require NO reprocessing (whether online, batch or other)?

I'd love to find actual data but, anecdotally, it seems like a large amount (vast majority?) of the nuclear legacy costs for countries like the UK, at least, come from the back-end - ie reprocessing. If you just store used rods (in perpetuity) near the reactor they were used in then the overall legacy footprint is pretty modest. Indeed, I think that's what the UK does now - our reprocessing facilities are now in decommissioning mode and the US did the same a long time ago.

Yes - part of the decision to stop reprocessing was proliferation risk. But I think it's also because reprocessing is so insanely messy and so easy to get wrong.

This is because if you 'reprocess' fuel, the waste problem just balloons... the rods have to be chopped up, dissolved in nitric acid, taken through a complex chemical process and you end up with vast amounts of liquid waste, various bits of undissolved gunk, a fiendishly difficult-to-decommission reprocessing facility and all the rest. Reprocessing plants are some of the most complicated chemical plants in the world... and when they go wrong (eg the UK's Thorp leak) they're almost impossible to repair owing to the radioactivity.

In the past, the purpose of the early reactors was to generate plutonium for weapons and so reprocessing was, in reality, the key activity, with the reactors just the tedious thing you had to build to provide feedstuff for this extraction process.

But if we don't want any new plutonium then there's no need to reprocess and the waste problem just becomes insanely easier.

To see what I mean, google the history of the UK's Sellafield (specifically the B.205 and Thorp plants) or Russia's Mayak or France's La Hague. So many leaks and accidents, all totally unnecessary if they hadn't been trying to reprocess the fuel. The idea of taking something small and stable (a rod) and turning it into a dangerous liquid and then trying to run it through a fiendishly complex chemical plant just seems nuts on its face.

Hence my question about MSRs... can you build one that doesn't require any of this tricky chemical engineering, whether 'online' or otherwise? If so, great. If not, why isn't this whole avenue just shut down as DOA?

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#152
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the most extreme thing one withstands is U.S. regulation.

Nothing requires this research to to be carried out in the US specifically beyond funding being available here. It’s really the inherent difficulties which is holding back progress.

My understanding is that you are not allowed to build a research reactor that is bigger then a university reactor but isn't a full scale energy producing reactor. My understanding is that for such a reactor you would need the full operating license just as a grid connected PWR.

And since in the US its essentially impossible to get a license for anything but a PWR, that isn't rally possible.

Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup, even those that started in other countries.

https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-li...

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, but any material used needs to withstand 4 extremes - high temperatures (650-850 C), corrosion (dissolves uranium), very high neutron flux, and US govt. regulation. Graphite is the current favorite non-metal option. It is already widely used in traditional reactors, so it is approved, and its interaction with radiation is well understood. On the other hand, its interaction with radiation and molten salt i…

Well, one thing about liquid fuel vs solid fuel is that you can move the fuel to a new reactor and, uh... ?"recycle"? / ?"overhaul"? the old one. So you could use one for 7 years why the other is retrofitted. You'd need two reactors... or... you'd need 8 and seven are online while 1 is replaced per year. So unless materials is solved, you need scalability and replacement. At least the OTHER problem with solid fuel, l…

There are a lot of options, I'm no nuclear engineer but looking at all the different companies, they all have different approaches:

Terrestrial Energy: The whole reactor, including heat exchanges and so on is defined for 7 years of life. After that a second reactor is running. After a few years the original reactor is put into a storage silo and then a new reactor is placed their ready to be switch to.

From memory they don't seem to pump the fuel from 1 to the other.

Flibe Energy: They are doing the famous lifter. Simular concept, 2 reactor cores with graphite moderation, after 7 years the fuel is pumped to the second reactor, the first is getting its graphite core replaced. This will have longer lead time to deployment.

Moltex Energy: They have totally different approach. Instead of 7 year lift-time they are building a traditional reactor with much longer life. They are basically building a sodium cooled fast reactor, but replace sodium with salt solution. And then in the fuel assemblies are also like those in sodium reactor, but contain liquid salt with uranium in them. They want to produce the fuel salt from spent Canadian CANDU fuel.

Kairos energy: This is a molten salt cooled reactor that uses pellet fuel but little balls instead of the traditional pellets.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct about the corrosion issue. I've done some work developing molten salt resistant claddings. The main culprit is chromium leaching, which de-alloys most of the metals approved for reactor design. The leeching happens at the grain boundaries, so you will hear 'intergranular attack' as a research focus. A close second problem is the radiation itself. Elements in both the containment vessel and salt transm…

The corrosion issue is part of what drove Moltex to their rather interesting design (sterile coolant salt is a fluoride; fuel salt in tubes is chloride; this is a fast reactor.) The absence of uranium in the fluoride allows it to be operated at a redox potential where chromium does not dissolve.

Yes, one of the reason I like that reactor design. They basically put something in the fluoride that is basically designed to corrode so that the actual reactor vessel doesn't. If I understand correctly.

Their design doesn't require the 7 year swap cycle most MSR do.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#155
post #151
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one fear is about the proliferation of reprocessing technology. So currently, with a traditional LWR, you buy X fuel rods, then later IAEA inspectors come by and check that those X rods are in the spent fuel pool. Reprocessing, to the very little extent it's done at all, is done by countries that already have nuclear weapons (except maybe Japan?), so the horse has already left the barn. But a MSR, at least fo…

Are there any MSR designs that require NO reprocessing (whether online, batch or other)? I'd love to find actual data but, anecdotally, it seems like a large amount (vast majority?) of the nuclear legacy costs for countries like the UK, at least, come from the back-end - ie reprocessing. If you just store used rods (in perpetuity) near the reactor they were used in then the overall legacy footprint is pretty modest.…

> Are there any MSR designs that require NO reprocessing (whether online, batch or other)?

I think the Terrestrial IMSR (which is probably the one closest to commercializing in the West) is designed for a once-through uranium cycle, similar to current LWR plants. The idea, IIRC, is to replace the entire reactor vessel (including the fuel salt) every 7 years.

Not sure what the plan is for dealing with the spent fuel. If the fuel salt is water soluble (not sure, but salts tend to be, right?) I'd think some form of processing is necessary before geological disposal. But maybe that can be a cleaner and simpler process than a full PUREX.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#156
post #46

So, in a conventional reactor, you use nuclear fission to heat/pressurize water and then use your hot, slightly radioactive steam turn a turbine. This mostly works because moving even very hot, very high pressure water around is kind of a solved problem in industry. In a molten salt reactor, you use nuclear fission to melt various corrosive salts into a fluid, and this is good because molten salts store a lot more en…

Molten salt loops are not as difficult with current technology as they were when they were first introduced. There are some very interesting startups in this field working on delivering these reactors on an industrial scale rather than the "artisanal" reactors that dominate today: Copenhagen Atomics [1] is one. They offer a molten salt loop for rapid prototyping [2] if you want to try it yourself. Seaborg Technologie…

Thanks for posting, this sounds super cool. Now I just really wished I had a reason to order a molten salt loop.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#157
post #28

Way, way overdue! China has taken all of our research from the 50's and has been charging ahead. Very sad that politics and ignorance has severely kneecapped our nuclear industry :(

It's also sad that industry completely failed to convince the population that they can provide a safe solution. For all the credit we give BigCo for creating propaganda, it's curious that they were unable to be successful here, given the stakes.

> It's also sad that industry completely failed to convince the population that they can provide a safe solution.

I don't really think the population matters. The problem is that after the NRC was replaced AEC was replaced, regulation became totally technology depended. Doing anything other then PWR was essentially impossible.

The DoD is only now undertaking efforts to change this, but its turning a large ship.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#158

A 1MW research reactor. Anyway, why is it always a fluoride salt? Is it because of the melting point or because of some nuclear property? I imagine there is some very relevant reason, because a less reactive anion (even chlorine) would be much easier to work with.

This video has a fair amount of information on exactly that question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkZ0ZBAVDu4

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#159

A 1MW research reactor. Anyway, why is it always a fluoride salt? Is it because of the melting point or because of some nuclear property? I imagine there is some very relevant reason, because a less reactive anion (even chlorine) would be much easier to work with.

Fluoride salts are good for fissile uranium + fertile thorium. If you want to work with a plutonium/uranium 238 cycle then chloride salts are a better choice. Plutonium doesn't dissolve very well in fluorides. Molten chloride reactors can have performance characteristics right out of science fiction, it seems possible for such a reactor to not only breed more fuel but to destroy the long-lived (500 year) fission prod…

They are not really ahead.

https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-li...

Terrestrial Energy Inc. is the furthest along in terms of the regulatory process.

And for Moltex to work they also need to get a CANDU fuel reprocessing facility online.

But I do think its a great and practical design.

They say they have a version that can be a thorium breeder but they have released little to no information.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fluoride salts are good for fissile uranium + fertile thorium. If you want to work with a plutonium/uranium 238 cycle then chloride salts are a better choice. Plutonium doesn't dissolve very well in fluorides. Molten chloride reactors can have performance characteristics right out of science fiction, it seems possible for such a reactor to not only breed more fuel but to destroy the long-lived (500 year) fission prod…

From your perspective, given that Thorium salt reactors are part of India's 3rd stage Nuclear plan, where is this technology in general? I assume that they're leading the pack, but I don't really know.

The problem with India is that they started with redoing the whole solid fuel thing first and that took a very long time.

Its hard to find information, but based on some talks I saw a couple years ago I don't think they are close to liquid fueled reactors.

They are still working mostly on creating thorium pellets to put into reactors.

Post reply on HN