Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 16, 2018 10:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: May 03, 2014 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
An LFTR would have serious issues attempting to burn very heavy actinides in very large amounts though.


Then build a lot of them. The important point is that LFTRs can burn more actinides than it produces.

E Ireland wrote:
An Accelerator driven system has a supply of make up neutrons so it can burn purely transuranics without risking prompt criticality if you want.


That means that they are good for neutron destruction of heavy elements. That does not mean they are good for producing power.

I can fathom a case made for ADSR as a means to destroy or produce certain elements, I just don't see it as a power source. It sounds like ADSR would produce power but given its complexity compared to LFTR I doubt it could do it cheaper. An energy source that cannot get cheaper than coal will not make it to market.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 03, 2014 8:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1492
ADSR would destroy actinides in a manner that just happens to produce electricity.

I think this just has to be seen as a means to produce power by coupling steam turbines to something that was going to go forward regardless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 03, 2014 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
ADSR would destroy actinides in a manner that just happens to produce electricity.


No doubt, but at what cost? LFTR can also do so but with a much simpler design.

E Ireland wrote:
I think this just has to be seen as a means to produce power by coupling steam turbines to something that was going to go forward regardless.


Given the greater complexity of the design I doubt that it could produce power at a price lower than that of LFTR. The power produced along with the services of disposing of nuclear waste might make it cost effective but producing power alone means it must compete with other designs. Even then designs like LFTR, or even CANDU, can burn what might otherwise be considered waste but just not at the rate that ADSR could.

Given the complexity of ADSR I'd have to wonder if one could not build multiple LFTRs at the same price and burn just as much stockpiled waste. The only difference would be that the LFTRs would produce more energy at a lower cost. That's all my opinion of course.

I can imagine a business case for ADSR as it could prove to be a cheaper way to produce seed fuel for LFTR and other MSRs at a cost lower than what we do currently. I just don't see it as a widely used energy source.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 07, 2014 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
EI and KS, you two may be arguing different ends of a total system. A large number of LFTRs could be used to burn the primary stock of TRUs from LWRs while a small number of ADSs are used to burn the LFTR cinders.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 09, 2014 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
A fast spectrum LFTR could recycle its own TRU. It could reduce core volume by 90%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 09, 2014 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1492
Fast reactors have yet to reach anything like cost breakeven with thermal reactors though.

Even PRISM is unlikely to be able to match a water cooled reactor like an ESBWR or a CANDU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 09, 2014 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Which is why you want a large number of thermal LFTRs for each fast reactor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 10, 2014 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
All the fast reactor issues are bound to come up in a fast spectrum MSR. No fast MSR's have been built though solid fuel fast reactors are working. It should be possible to control the fast MSR's in the same way.
So far, no one seems willing to bell the fast MSR cat.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group