ADSR Energy from Thorium

[masluxx]

hmmm, sound like a gas cap outlet into expansion chamber and recirculation pumps are in need on an much enlarged primary pressure vessal. 

[HydrogenAlpha]

LFTR is a much better solution. Here you are still constrained by the limitations of a solid core and need for reprocessing, steam generation and high pressure vessels. LFTR is a much more elegant solution which is passively safe.

[waltoncats]

@HydrogenAlpha Thanks, to answer each of your questions in turn:

- Solid cores do indeed require more processing. But they do contain fission gases and tritium better, which is important. The main issue with LFTR/MSR is noble metal plating, which is a particular problem on the heat exchangers. Plating is an unsolved problem on LFTR.

- Steam generation is a problem on LFTR, hence the move to gas Brayton cycle for the turbines.

- High pressure vessels are an issue in PWRs, but not in LFRs

[Ryukachoo]

@waltoncats it's not an unsolved problem, Hastelloy-N works just fine, and worked fine for 5 years in the MSRE

[waltoncats]

@Ryukachoo I spoke to Jess Gehin at ORNL a couple of weeks ago. As you will know, ORNL are the only people so far to have constructed MSRs, and Jess told me that much work remains to be done to understand the issues of long-term corrosion and its control. Whilst H-N is licensable, chemistry control, particularly for faster spectrum systems, needs to be thought about. We'll see what's constructed in Shanghai and what they find out.

[Ryukachoo]

@waltoncats the reports seems to indicate that the hastelloy held up like a champ, even in the face of very heavy neutron bombardment outside of the moderated core. The only issue was some weird micro fractures in the surface, however that was mostly solved by upping the molybdinum content in the alloy. Gotta love that molybdinum

[aloisgault]

It looks like these would take a LOT of rare alloys and materials VS, The LFTR reactors given the particle accelerator used for proton excitation. The LFTR does seem to require as much contruction materials, yet does very much the same task.

[bigpchamber]

I don't know how big or expensive the proton beam generator wold have to be, but with this technology, is seems you could build very small power generators. Ones which could power small villages in the third world, or power water treatment plants. If it could be scaled up to say 3GWt, you wouldn't need anywhere near as much material in you reactor. This could be even better than the thorium Molten Salt Reactor.

[waltoncats]

@bigpchamber The proton beam generators are indeed presently very large and expensive, and that is one of the areas of study right now. The aim is to make such generators smaller, cheaper, and crucially more reliable.

[btester1]

Global warming is complete bullshit.

UN has been completely discredited.



[granddad2002]

The case for thorium is strong. The spin-off application are lucrative. Since it makes little sense re-building 'classic' nuclear reactors... all the benefits are there. R/D to commercial development should be the guiding principle of how to do this? 1-2 years for an experimental design. 6 months to 1 year on building the demonstrator. 2 years of controlled operation. Would recommend building on a decommissioned nuclear reactor site? Logistics and personnel are already there. A five year plan.

[Weenchit]

@granddad2002 I think advanced reactor designs are terrific and should be researched. However, don't kid yourself: the process of engineering a new reactor design and getting it certified and commercialized in an economically feasible way during your lifetime is basically impossible. I think the right plan is to create thorium fuel rods for current reactors in a once-through cycle. Then follow up with new reactors. I think if we spend our energy on new reactors now we will wind up with nothing.

[waltoncats]

@Weenchit Exactly right - starting with MOX fuel with Th in it is a good way to get started, but probably isn't commercially-attractive enough since it doesn't offer a great financial incentive compared to present solid fuels.

But, getting a new reactor up and running could be done quickly if the will was there. The first reactor - Shippingport - was designed and constructed in 32 months. That is a lot less than a lifetime.

[Weenchit]

@waltoncats I don't deny such a reactor could be engineered and built quickly. That's not the issue. The problem is getting the government and every other stakeholder on board. That is what takes forever. Thorium fuel rods for existing light water reactors are basically ready to go and could conceivably be approved pretty soon - at least for non-U.S. markets. I think it would be prudent to apply concentrated pressure there first before gunning for LFTR or other cool ideas. Some day we will win!

[Muso57]

I think that LFTR and concentrated solar thermal power stations are the answer to our transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

[JoFergusons]

I've chosen to treat the Thorium issue as a "Tipping Point" in history on my new Blog (click my Username above), and would appreciate Comments from you if you're fascinated by the Science and Politics of Thorium, or any of the other factors that went into it's early demise...and possible re-emergence!

If you know of any other interesting, controversial, or speculative Tipping Points, feel free to submit them to Reddit: r/TippingPoints/

[starmanskye]

@JoFergusons -- Is there an opportunity to introduce LFTR as a critical, effective remediation 'solution' for the uranium spent-fuel 'problem' at Fukushima? Seems like such a balls-up waste to NOT use the energy-potential of the fuel rods since they could be reprocessed and used MUCH more efficiently, combining energy-production w/ long-term containment.