Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 23, 2018 9:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
Here is a cleaned-up version of the chemical processing flow diagram that was proposed for the "reference" ORNL MSBR design (one-fluid, circa 1972). It is the most detailed examination of the chemical processing problem that I have encountered in my study of the literature. This was created from the processing flow diagram which appeared several places in the MSR literature, most notably in ORNL-TM-3579.


Attachments:
ORNL4541-flowsheet-full.pdf [53.6 KiB]
Downloaded 347 times
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 04, 2013 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
If you'd like to generate this diagram yourself, I've written a tool in Java to facilitate the drawing of graphical figures like this.

1. Click on this link TikzDiagrams.jnlp. This will either start a Java program (using Java WebStart) or start the download of the TikzDiagrams.jnlp file, which you can then open in Java WebStart. This is the program I've written that built this diagram and can build others like it. (you have to accept all its security warnings and stuff....Java does that because this program can read and write files on your computer.)

2. When the program opens it looks totally blank and boring. The program begins with an XML file already loaded into its memory. You need to save this file to your local drive so that you can then go open it again in the program and "run" it. Go up to "File" and choose "Save XML File". Pick some convenient place to put it. I would recommend putting it in its own directory because later on it will write some files in this location.

3. Once the file is saved, then go to "File" and "Open XML File". Go back to where you saved the XML file and select it. It may not look like much has happened but look in the directory again and you will see several new files with .tex extensions on them. These are the outputs of the program. They were created from the content in the XML file that you saved.

4. Assuming you have a LaTeX editor, you can then typeset these .tex files and look at the nice PDFs that they will make. LaTeX editors are free and can be downloaded easily from the net. For Linux computers running Ubuntu, I downloaded TeXWorks with the command-line argument:

sudo apt-get install texworks

For my Windows computer, it took a few more steps. First I downloaded and installed MiKTek. This step had to be completed before attempting to install TeXworks, since MiKTeX is the “engine” that TeXworks will use to make PDF documents from LaTeX files.

http://miktex.org/

Then download and install TeXworks:

http://code.google.com/p/texworks/

5. You can create your own XML files and then build graphical .tex files from them by opening them in the Java program. The XML files have to adhere to a particular syntax, called a "schema" in XML-world. The schema for the XML file is called TikzBlockDiagramMenu.xsd and it references another schema called TikzBlockDiagramData.xsd, both of which can be studied by clicking on the links. When the program attempts to load an XML file, it will check it against this schema to see if it is valid. If it is, it will go ahead and write the .tex files. If not, you'll get an error message.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 05, 2013 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 247
great job.

For the first time, I feel like I almost understand this maze.

I think the arrow on top of the RE to LiCl reactor
is going the wrong way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 05, 2013 10:53 am 
Online

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
And I've been worrying about my BAHR's recycling system, its nothing compared to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 05, 2013 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
djw1 wrote:
I think the arrow on top of the RE to LiCl reactor is going the wrong way.


Good catch. Will correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 06, 2013 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
Seems a LOT more complicated than for the 2 fluid reactor!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 06, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Absolutely a 1 or 1.5 fluid iso-breeding reactor volunteers for more complex chemical processing and avoids problems with the first wall. (Simplest would be to use a 1 fluid and not try for iso-breeding so you skip problems with either chemical processing or the first wall but you end up with more stuff flowing to the waste).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 10, 2013 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
This is not yet completed (it lacks the fluorine cell and electrolysis system) but it is another way to depict the material flows connected with the chemical processing system of the ORNL reference (one-fluid) MSBR design.


Attachments:
ORNL4541-icon-full.pdf [34.12 KiB]
Downloaded 169 times
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 16, 2013 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
Here is another process flow diagram, this time for the two-fluid reactor design described in ORNL-4528. The fluorine processing system is again omitted because it is essentially common to all ORNL MSR concepts.


Attachments:
ORNL4528-icon-full.pdf [58.56 KiB]
Downloaded 180 times
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2014 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 03, 2011 7:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rhinebeck, NY
Hi, on the lithium addition what is a "g mole/day" ? I get g/day or mole/day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2014 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3387
Location: Alabama
edpell wrote:
Hi, on the lithium addition what is a "g mole/day" ? I get g/day or mole/day.


A "gram-mole per day", as opposed to a "kilogram-mole per day".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2014 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
A "gram mole" of chemical X is the mass of one mole of basic particles of that substance. Ex: "one gram mole of water / day" is about "18 g (of water) / day". Or at least this is what I've learned via google.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 3:42 am 
Online

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1495
So essentially g.mole is actual moles and kg.mole is ~kmoles?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
As I understand a mole is like a dozen. It is just a number. You need to specify what is it you are counting. The most common presumption is that one is counting molecules. If you have a mole of molecules then it will have a mass in grams numerically equal to the AMU of one molecule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2014 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
This thread’s discussion supports my contention that an isobreeding (CR=1) version of the EU's, "1.5 salt", molten salt fast reactor (MSFR) constitutes the most sensible way to implement a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. The reason for this is that the amount of "reprocessing" required to keep such a reactor running at steady-state would be so low (only ~6 of a total of 18,000 liters of its fuel salt stream processed per day ), that it is simply illogical to do anything other than fissile (233U) recovery; i.e., first "gently" fluorinate that tiny slipstream to recover the uranium (not Pu & MA) & then chuck everything else into the waste tank.

The makeup salts (74.8 g moles BeF2, (53+65+131) g moles 7LiF, and 100.3 g moles ThF4) required by the heroically complex/expensive (re)processing system depicted in Kirk’s/ORNL’s MSBR flowsheet* combined with ~2.9 kg/day of misc. fission product fluoride salts adds up to a discard rate of ~37 kilograms/day/GWe. The six liters/day of fuel salt discarded by a significantly more powerful (1.5 GWe vs 1 GWe) MSFR isobreeder operated as recommended would weigh only about 24 kilograms and contain considerably less 7Li & Th.

* For some reason, most of the EU’s EVOL researchers still seem to assume that the MSFR would require a similarly complex reprocessing system.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group