Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 17, 2018 11:40 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2014 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
darryl siemer wrote:
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.


Just curious, what about nat thorium and TRU waste (per GWyear) this configuration approx. does it need/produce ? Or, if it possible to guess it, the fissile start-up need ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2014 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
Alex P wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
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.


Just curious, what about nat thorium and TRU waste (per GWyear) this configuration approx. does it need/produce ? Or, if it possible to guess it, the fissile start-up need ?


Here's the paper that I wrote about this scenario last October after I'd started an EFT discussion about it. EFT's discussion forum is the only place you'll see it because it's too politically incorrect for typical NE journals.

Its section IIIB discusses waste. One of the surprising things is that very little TRU ends up being discarded in spite of the fact that no effort is made to "burn it" in the core.


Attachments:
BEST MSBR paper rev 3.doc [862.5 KiB]
Downloaded 307 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2014 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
If I read it correctly (table III), a MSFR produces about 5 kg of TRU waste per GWyear, I expected something in the range of tens/one hundred at max of grams per year, but not bad anyway - by the way, I really like the idea to skip away from graphite waste

About the fact that a MSFR needs ~ 5 tonnes of fissile (as U-233), am I wrong or a LWR needs ~ the same amount of U-235 as LEU ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2014 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3819
Location: Alabama
Guys, we have plenty of threads about the MSFR/EVOL work. I suggest we take the discussion to one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 16, 2014 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 187
E Ireland wrote:
So essentially g.mole is actual moles and kg.mole is ~kmoles?


Possibly boring nitpicking:

A mole of water is a mole of water (6.023 X 10^23 molecules), it is also 18 grams of water. I've never really understood using gram-mole, since it seems redundant. Have never run across kg mole ... that actually seems confusing. Is it a thousand moles (18 kg) or the weight of 1 mole in kg (0.018 kg) ... the latter seems consistent, but not real clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 17, 2014 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
I just use 'moles' and then the SI prefixes.

kilomoles and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 25, 2015 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 08, 2015 4:34 pm
Posts: 12
Thanks for making this graphical tool available Kirk!!

If we make bazillions one day we wont forget you!!! ;]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group