Live data from Hacker News

Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

world-nuclear-news.org

31–40 of 217 posts

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing the specifics as apply to nukes, anion reactivity is inversely proportional to atomic reactivity, fluoride is far less reactive than chloride or bromide or iodide, respectively in order of increasing reactivity. Ergo fluoride and fluoride containing anions are quite common in molten salts/ionic liquids. In English: the flouride, having so voraciously devoured that 8th electron it was missing, really d…

The concern is not so much about the fluoride losing an electron, but about whatever reacted to it stealing electrons from the reactor.

Which is less likely with fluorine because what fluorine reacts with to form the salt, say Na as in NaF, wants to give up an electron, not receive one. And with fluorine as a partner, Na will have the hardest* time retrieving that electron to give to something else. This can be easily validated by comparing enthalpy of reaction and formation for the various halide salts.

The properties of broad chemical stability are not limited to ionically bonded fluorine either, see PTFE, which also derives its stability from the extreme reactivity of fluorine. Compared to say PTIE (polytetraiodoethylene), which if you could even make would rapidly yellow and degrade in open air/mild sunlight, as iodine compounds are wont to do.

*for a loose definition of hardest.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#32

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…

I think one key aspect is that they are less susceptible / immune to loss of coolant incidents. In a PWR if there is a loss of pressure, or coolant in any other way, and emergency cooling doesn't work, the core overheats and might melt down.

An uncooled pool of molten salt will keep on generating heat even after the reaction is stopped, so will continue heating up, but it is possible to design the reactor so that the whole thing remains stable. Since the pressure is low, there is no risk of explosion, or release of the radioactive materials.

So the energy density is i think a secondary benefit, if at all.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of those safety improvements -- a freeze plug -- passively halts the reaction in the event of a power cut. The reactor sits on top of a vault that has a larger volume separated by a narrow tube containing molten salt that has been frozen into a plug by cryocoolers powered by the turbines themselves. If the pumps stop for any reason, then the plug quickly melts and the molten fluid from the reactor drains into the…

Freeze plugs sound super cool, but this part breaks my brain: > containing molten salt that has been frozen into a plug Presumably salt can't be both molten and frozen at once, or is there something about this domain that I don't understand?

I believe they use active cooling to keep the plug frozen.

If the power fails, the cooling fails and the plug melts.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Annoyingly, "molten salt reactor" is used to describe two different technologies. What you describe is a traditional reactor that uses molten salt to move heat. This typically leads to higher efficiencies, but does have corrosion issues. Other power generation systems can also benefit from molten salt loops - namely solar energy collectors. In the research field, "molten salt reactors" (MSRs) usually means the other…

One of those safety improvements -- a freeze plug -- passively halts the reaction in the event of a power cut. The reactor sits on top of a vault that has a larger volume separated by a narrow tube containing molten salt that has been frozen into a plug by cryocoolers powered by the turbines themselves. If the pumps stop for any reason, then the plug quickly melts and the molten fluid from the reactor drains into the…

Are freeze plug failures recoverable? Or is is this a final failsafe that toasts the reactor?

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#35
post #21

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…

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…

Perhaps it's just how much more careful you have to be with plutonium products because of proliferation concerns, or possibly diplomacy concerns "legitimizing", or perhaps just paranoia. Or the basic concern of a bunch more plutonium hanging around even if secure.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#36
post #21

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…

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…

(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 is fear that any new approach to fuel processing could have unintended consequences. Would it be possible, for instance, to make something like the EBR-II that breeds weapon grade plutonium in a blanket and uses some form of pyroprocessing to produce pure metallic plutonium? Such a system might be able to make enough material to build several weapons a year.

(2) The published information about nuclear proliferation is incomplete and the mental models behind it are broken. For instance, the "little boy" bomb was made with uranium produced with a

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

but for all the fear that countries like Iran would develop centrifuges, there has been little fear expressed about Calutrons... Except that when Iraq tried to develop a bomb it used the exact same approach used by the US! A scientist at CERN had been contacted by an Iraqi scientist who was interested in a magnet which could have been used for a Calutron and the proliferation authorities just blew him off.

See https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/andre/ISRI-95-03.pdf

A country like Japan has large amounts of plutonium which is contaminated with Pu240 and Pu241 and not weapons usable but it's plausible that a modified Calutron could be used to purify non-weapons grade plutonium and make it weapons grade.

Although the conventional model is that a threat would make plutonium by irradiating uranium with neutrons from a fission reactor, it's also possible that a fusion reactor or particle accelerator could be used as a neutron source to do the same. The later would actually have less heat output per unit of Pu and might be an easier device to hide. Current particle accelerators aren't reliable or economical enough for this purpose, but this is just one of many paths to proliferation which are ignored.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#37
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freeze plugs sound super cool, but this part breaks my brain: > containing molten salt that has been frozen into a plug Presumably salt can't be both molten and frozen at once, or is there something about this domain that I don't understand?

I believe they use active cooling to keep the plug frozen. If the power fails, the cooling fails and the plug melts.

It is literally just a tube with a fan blowing over it. Most designs just barely solidify it, so any over-temperature events also cause a passive shutdown.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#38

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…

> corrosion resistant materials for containing / moving molten salt

I'm interested to see what Moltex can do to simplify matters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qJpVClxzVM&t=758s

Instead of pumping the salt around, they plan to leave it sitting in stainless steel tubes, and use simple convection to extract the heat. Oak Ridge rejected this idea in the 1950s because they were trying to power an aircraft, but convection makes more sense when the reactor isn't moving.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of those safety improvements -- a freeze plug -- passively halts the reaction in the event of a power cut. The reactor sits on top of a vault that has a larger volume separated by a narrow tube containing molten salt that has been frozen into a plug by cryocoolers powered by the turbines themselves. If the pumps stop for any reason, then the plug quickly melts and the molten fluid from the reactor drains into the…

Are freeze plug failures recoverable? Or is is this a final failsafe that toasts the reactor?

Easily recoverable. The tube drains into a collection tank filled with control rods, so any reactions are halted. You can just reheat the salt and pump it back into the reactor. Reportedly, one of the first test reactors in the 50's was shut off every Friday and restarted on Monday. A full power loss, what would be catastrophic for any other reactor, was tested weekly for a year without issue.

Re: Application submitted for US molten salt research reactor

#40

I thought these were outlawed, per a LFTR video I saw once. To emphasize, I'm asking if that is the case, or was the LFTR video was engaging in misinformation, or if something changed in regulations.

Yes, they are illegal to build.
Post reply on HN