Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 18, 2018 4:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 23, 2016 5:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2225
Enrichment of Li7 is more critical than that of Cl37 as Li6 is a neutron poison and purity of 99.995% is required, tolerance being 1 in 20'000. Cl37 could be even 99% pure. LFTR, lf built, may have to have an initial burner version and use FNaBe salt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 29, 2016 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Burghard wrote:
There was an interesting link on page xviii in the paper concerning isotopic separation of Li6/7.
Great paper!

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 07, 2016 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Kirk,

I searched through the Flibe Energy LFTR EPRI report for "core damage frequency" and "CDF" and found no hits.

Please excuse my statement of the obvious for the sake of contrast in a business case, but next to the Westinghouse AP1000s that are getting readied (Vogtle and VC Summer by 2019), from that link:
Quote:
Large Safety Margins

The AP1000 PWR meets the U.S. NRC deterministic-safety and probabilistic-risk criteria with large margins. The safety analysis is documented in the AP1000 plant Design Control Document (DCD) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). Results of the PRA show a very low core damage frequency (CDF) that is 1/100 of the CDF of currently operating plants and 1/20 of the CDF deemed acceptable in the Utility Requirements Document for new, advanced reactor designs. It follows that the AP1000 plant also improves upon the probability of large release goals for advanced reactor designs in the event of a severe accident scenario to retain the molten core within the reactor vessel.

This is apples and oranges for the FE LFTR, correct? So, LFTR beat's AP1000 with a 1/0 CDF--can't divide by zero.

Wikipedia wrote:
On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant. The cost of building the two reactors is expected to be $14 billion.
Alec Herbert asked about FE LFTR cost ranges.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 08, 2016 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Core damage can still occur in a liquid fuel reactor, its just it won't look like it would in an LWR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 08, 2016 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
E Ireland, please: Re: Lithium-7

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry March 2013, Volume 295, Issue 3, pp 2103-2110.

Attachment:
jingjing2013.pdf [412.64 KiB]
Downloaded 222 times

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 08, 2016 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 18, 2011 11:44 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Sydney, Australia
This report is primarily about LFTR commercialisation challenges which might explain the lack of audience enthusiasm. The business side of technology doesn't seem to evoke as much interest as the technical side. That said there are some nice "sneak peeks" at the Flibe Energy technical design.

For me the report is pretty much summed up by figures 3, 4 and 5. And the message is that LFTR is achievable, modestly complex, not ready yet and that there is lots of work yet to do on the road to commercialisation. I commend those that are doing it and I hope you have good financial backing.

In my book LFTR is the holy grail of reactor designs. However I'd really like to see this sort of analysis done on a comparative basis for some of the other MSR designs so as to be able to judge who might be first to market. I think being first to market will confer substantial advantages for whoever achieves it. And I do not take for granted that it will be LFTR.

Attachment:
File comment: Figure 3
image.jpeg
image.jpeg [ 212.95 KiB | Viewed 2745 times ]


Attachment:
File comment: Figure 4
image.jpeg
image.jpeg [ 110.65 KiB | Viewed 2745 times ]


Attachment:
File comment: Figure 5
image.jpeg
image.jpeg [ 174.33 KiB | Viewed 2745 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 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 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