ADSR Energy from Thorium

No description available.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ADSR
• Energy
• from
• Thorium

[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

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

[masluxx]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.