Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 217 posts

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#191

Post by albrewer »

jxf wrote: post #126
ortusdux wrote: post #53

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 standard way to test material's resistance to molten salt is to put a coupon in a crucible full of salt for a few hundred hours. Q: What is a coupon in this context?

Coupon is used in metalworking to mean a sample you can submit for destructive testing that is representative of the whole piece under test.

A weld coupon, for example, is a piece of test material of the same thickness and weld preparation as the main part being welded but is not integral to the part itself. That coupon is then sawed off and submitted for destructive tests like impact testing (to determine minimum operating temperature), tensile strength testing (specimen is pulled apart to find how strong and stretchy it is), and crystallographic etching (looking at the crystal structure of the metal to see if it has defects).

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#193

Post by HPsquared »

baq wrote: post #192
mulmen wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding What point are you trying to make here?

no heat, no melting. just welding

Perhaps it would have been better to say "melting two parts together is just welding".

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#195

Post by bayesian_horse »

powerhour wrote: post #44
EricE wrote: 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.

The existing technology isn't actually that safe. The safe technology isn't that existing, actually.

The "population" tends to not believe claims about certain accidents being impossible if they keep happening. The safety of nuclear power is a fantasy. No, the track record is not enough. Given the enormous potential for catastrophe and the timespans for nuclear power project, questioning assumptions like "nobody is going to shoot rockets and shells around the plant" is entirely valid.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#196

Post by bayesian_horse »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #96
powerhour wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Energy too cheap to meter doesn't sound like a good investment from a capitalistic viewpoint.

You don't understand capitalism then. And you fell for propaganda and fantasy of the nuclear industry apparently.

Nuclear power isn't that cheap. Certainly not without subsidies and once you price in all the externalities.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#197

Post by nine_k »

runarberg wrote: post #115
PaulHoule wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) There is fear that any advance in nuclear power technology will lead to corresponding advances in nuclear weapons technology. For instance, if somebody built a perfect system for separating out protactinium from a thorium MSR, that protactinium could be allowed to decay outside the reactor and produce pure U233 that could be used to make weapons. That perfect system is probably not practical, but in general there…

> There is fear that any advance in nuclear power technology will lead to corresponding advances in nuclear weapons technology. It seems like it would be a good idea to get the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ( https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/ ) signed by more nations then, so that this technology could be safely developed without a risk of nations weaponizing it.

Ukraine let go its Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1991. In 2014 Russia occupied a large part of it, and in 2022 is trying to occupy it entirely. Aster this, I suppose no other nation will ever voluntarily relinquish their existing nuclear weapons, and many nations that don't have nukes will try hard to obtain them.

This ship has sailed, to my mind.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#198

Post by panick21_ »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #189
panick21_ wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I've been thinking about the dumb idea of using solid uranium/thorium as the (closest) salt containment layer: you have a solid uranium (melting point 2000C) or thorium layer (3000C) around the salt, which may not degrade it that quickly if the salts (which are a solution basically, if it's a liquid?) are more or less saturated. Or even if it isn't, how long would a layer of uranium or thorium last? I guess that's th…

I don't know enough to answer any of that.

> weekly monthly re-coat

Any operation inside the reactor is a bad idea.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#199

Post by panick21_ »

ethbr0 wrote: post #170
panick21_ wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reg…

> Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup Canada's vast tracts of land wouldn't hurt either. If a meltdown or containment breach happens, and no population centers are within 400km, that's a much better bad scenario.

I mean you don't build reactors somewhere out of in the middle of no-where, you need a labor force and infrastructure to build them.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#200

Post by panick21_ »

cupofpython wrote: post #184
ethbr0 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup Canada's vast tracts of land wouldn't hurt either. If a meltdown or containment breach happens, and no population centers are within 400km, that's a much better bad scenario.

yeah im not exactly mad about it being hard / impossible for people to set up a lab-based experimental nuclear reactor near me due to regulations

Those reactors will be much safer then the street in front of your house.
Post reply on HN