Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 22, 2018 12:03 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
I've seen the videos. I've seen the picture of the Oak Ridge Molten Salt reactor. Is it still there? Could it be restarted for more research into materials? If it's there, why not modify it and find out more? And yes,......I'd expect Uncle Sam to pay for it. It would be a "shudder" Socialist type program done for the good of all and not just a private company.

If the stuff is still there - Some of the equipment would be bad after all these years and need replacing / upgrading. We have better instrumentation than they had back then.

I don't think it would be a lot of money compared to some other programs and there would be a lot to be gained. Some of the conjecture I've seen in the posts on this site could be tested. I'd think there would be a lot to be gained. If nothing else, people would gain a knowledge of what y'all have been trying to do and you'd probably get public support. New knowledge could give Mr. Sorensen's company and the WAMSR help with their designs.

This could be like the 1930s when the government built all those dams out West that provide cheap power for people to this day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2014 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
I believe the piping and even the vessel were cut into at the end to investigate for neutron damage so I don't think anything there can be reused except the concrete silos and the fuel salt. Still it seems a reasonable trade to cleanup the existing equipment and install a next experiment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2014 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3427
Location: Alabama
Very similar idea to this recent topic:

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4267


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2014 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
its difficult to modify a nuclear facility that is already contaminated. The costs go way up. It really would be easier, faster,cheaper to build new.
There was a reactor called the LOFT reactor which had a containment building with a rail road door in it. the concept was to bring in a mobile test assembly and do their experiments. then drag a new a new one for the next. in the end they only has one test assembly.

Now a LFTR does not need a containment building. But, I am not sure an experimental reactor of any kind could be build without one.


Last edited by Ida-Russkie on Jan 12, 2014 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 12, 2014 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Well to be honest I am not sure an LWR needs one either but thats just me.

We will never be permitted to build a reactor without one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 13, 2014 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
The US DOE have collected funds for disposal of spent fuel which would be best spent on development of a multiple recycling friendly reactor design like an MSBR.
If they do not do it, perhaps the Chinese will, as a business proposition and compete with Russians who are building a lot of VVER's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 13, 2014 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
Now a LFTR does not need a containment building.


We still have to deal with volatile radioactive products in the off-gas systems and the reprocessing units (in the plant with a LFTR, in an other place with a DMSR).

In case of failure of the first barrier, I suppose we will need a second barrier to contain these gases, now a containment building may not be the best option for that, I don't know. Anyway a containment building will be required for all new nuclear powerplants I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 13, 2014 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
You need an external events shield (protection from random airplanes, tornadoes and hurricanes). You also need multiple levels of containment - three seems to be a typical number for defense in depth. This is especially true for the off-gases. Even for the fuel salt itself we have some offgases still in the fuel salt (not a lot since the amount is only the stuff generated in the last minute or so but still some). In addition, you have an inventory of iodine that will decay to xenon and so we have a significant amount of gasses represented there.

In addition, you need a gamma shield.

So, yes we do need a significant structure around us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 13, 2014 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
but you will not have the pressures of a light water reactor. so maybe it will be substantially cheaper to build.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2014 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Second, the building volume is about 10x smaller so definitely cheaper.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2014 3:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
A LWR can just dump steam if worst comes to worst by simply opening a vent from its pressure vessel.

Unless massive core damage has already occurred this will not result in the release of any radioactivity that endures beyond the time it takes for the steam column to pillar. A sufficiently tall stack will provide protection from the nitrogen gammas to anyone on the ground near the plant at the time.

Attempting to direct vent the containment of a MSR to atmosphere is... problematic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2014 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Any reactor with lots of water inside needs to plan for what to do if it all turns to steam and you get a massive increase in volume as a result. An MSR has very little water inside and no other materials that change to the gas phase as a result even in the worst case accident you don't have any pressure build up that needs to be vented. So direct venting to the atmosphere is not a requirement in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2014 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Lars wrote:
Any reactor with lots of water inside needs to plan for what to do if it all turns to steam and you get a massive increase in volume as a result. An MSR has very little water inside and no other materials that change to the gas phase as a result even in the worst case accident you don't have any pressure build up that needs to be vented. So direct venting to the atmosphere is not a requirement in the first place.


Well if no core damage has occured you just open the dump squibs and the pressurised steam just vents from the reactor.
The idea of having to contain the water inside the containment is just something that regulators have forced upon it.

Its hard to think of a scenario that can lead to a sudden increase of steam pressure and cause immediate core damage.......


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group