Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 24, 2018 2:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 04, 2014 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 07, 2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 123
Location: USA
Forgive me if I am being redundant. Has the Terrestrial Energy (name of company) Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) been covered on this forum? I did a search and could not find it listed.

See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/how-te ... olten.html

and the company website at

http://terrestrialenergy.com/imsr-technology/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 05, 2014 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
That is funny. Whe I searched on IMSR I found many topics on it,several with the abreviation in its title.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 05, 2014 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Feb 17, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 35
Location: Boston, MA
I looked at their site and noticed no mention of using heat from the reactors to generate heat to extract oil from oil sands. Wasn't that going to be their first application? Did something happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 05, 2014 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2011 2:24 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Taunusstein, Germany
Have a look at their board of directors. At least two of them have experience with the oil sand business: Paul MacIntosh and Chris Popoff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 05, 2014 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 07, 2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 123
Location: USA
Tim Flavin wrote:
I looked at their site and noticed no mention of using heat from the reactors to generate heat to extract oil from oil sands. Wasn't that going to be their first application? Did something happen?


Watch the videos. They mention oil sands. The first application will probably be electricity production. I found it interesting that they make the argument that using thorium makes no sense at the present time because of cost and increased proliferation risk. They also say that their design can use thorium as well, and that full reprocessing is possible within 10 years. They claim that right now uranium is so abundant and their reactor uses uranium so efficiently that the increased costs of using thorium, and the regulatory burdens that go along with it, make no economic sense right now. But, this obviously opens the door for thorium as technology improves and people get use to the benefits of a liquid fuel design. You could call this reactor a cost effective pathway to a full thorium reactor down the road.

There are so many new reactor designs, new inventions, and new science being developed, it is difficult to predict which technology will win. If Lockheed Martin can make a hot fusion reactor with the complexity of a ordinary jet engine, as they claim, then will any fission reactor be able to compete? Between now and January 1st, 2015, you will see papers published and inventions revealed (and proven) that will stir the energy market pot, to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 06, 2014 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Since years you can regularly read that someone claims to have found the source of energy of the future. Since severel years there are plenty of very optimistic inventors of MSR reactors.

Did anyone see detailled technical data about this reactor concept?
Are there any reasons that this concept is superior to the wellknown concepts of the MSFR or the MSR of the 70ies?

Best regards

Holger

PS: My oldest son had very creative ideas when he was 6 -8 years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 06, 2014 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 07, 2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 123
Location: USA
I think their arguments are real-world short term economic arguments rather that theoretical long term technical superiority. Who has 2.5 billion dollars to get a completely new reactor design approved? They suggest that their design is very simple and uses proven and accepted fuel paths, so it can be certified for less money and effort.

The US Navy would love this design. It would allow for nuclear powered frigates and destroyers at low cost. The design is a liquid fueled nuclear battery. Not much to go wrong unless you are hit by a missile or torpedo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
They have picked on Canada to try out and get the design approved. Others have gone to China. I think that they have simplified it to extent that molten salt fuel is the main idea to be proved. I wish them well as it can start the movement in MSR designs. It could lead to higher conversion ratio, pyroprocessing and burning of LWR/PHWR used fuel as proposed by Transatomic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
HolgerNarrog wrote:
Since years you can regularly read that someone claims to have found the source of energy of the future. Since severel years there are plenty of very optimistic inventors of MSR reactors.

Did anyone see detailled technical data about this reactor concept?
Are there any reasons that this concept is superior to the wellknown concepts of the MSFR or the MSR of the 70ies?


There are many advantages and innovations, unfortunately much is still patent pending and must be kept under wraps for now. The walls have ears and all that.

One thing that should be obvious though. IMSR is more operable than previous molten salt reactors. Replacing reactors like inkjet printer cartridges avoids having to open up the radioactive primary loop and doing any sort of maintenance on high activity equipment at the powerplant site itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
Christopher Calder wrote:
The US Navy would love this design. It would allow for nuclear powered frigates and destroyers at low cost. The design is a liquid fueled nuclear battery. Not much to go wrong unless you are hit by a missile or torpedo.


The IMSR system has the capability to withstand direct hit from high energy missiles as well as flooding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
The biggest thing is resistance to extreme shock conditions.

All the components in the reactor have to be able to avoid de-ranging after a nearby torpedo impact - this is the big killer when it comes to the cost of naval equipment, especially electronics.

A lot of the time they resort to casting the circuitboards into a solid block of resin to support the components against g-loadings that might rip them off otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
The IMSR does not need electronics to survive for ultimate safety.

However the current focus is on land based IMSR, not marine apps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
Quote:
The IMSR system has the capability to withstand direct hit from high energy missiles as well as flooding.


What do you mean exactly ? That the IMSR can be designed with a protective metallic/concrete shield capable of withstand missiles or, more impressive, that even with the fuel salt opened to the atmosphere we won't have great contaminations ?

(Idem for flooding : do you want to say that with the passive safety the flooding can not interrupt decay heat removal or, more impressive, that the direct contact between the fuel salt and water is not a big deal ?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
Cyril R wrote:
The IMSR does not need electronics to survive for ultimate safety.

However the current focus is on land based IMSR, not marine apps.

Indeed but it will also not be able to use any fragile structures at all.
This is why alloy fuel PWRs eare so well liked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2014 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
A lot of the time they resort to casting the circuitboards into a solid block of resin to support the components against g-loadings that might rip them off otherwise.
Mostly they just shock isolate what is known as MOTS electronics (modified "off the shelf") in fairly standard commercial cabinets. Sometimes they isolate the entire space and use COTS (commercial off the shelf) electronics.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

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