Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Nov 19, 2018 6:42 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 09, 2014 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1555
Well LWR containments can use steel plate fabrication techniques such that they are essentially "bolt together, fill with concrete and come back tommorow" types of construction.

I believe this has been used to significantly shorten the AP1000 production Schedule in China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 03, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 359
Location: Florida
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
References:
ORNL-4577, "Low-Pressure Distillation of a Portion of the Fuel Carrier Salt from the MSRE", August 1971.
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ORNL-4577.pdf
Thank you, Kirk, for this valuable paper. Your work here is truly splendid indeed! Your company may be faced with what seems a nearly impossible mission, but I believe you will succeed. Your work will be honored by future generations and your name is destined to be remembered along with all great names.

May I add that some time soon, a great epiphany will happen on the Flibe Energy LFTR. High-level actions will pave the way for this, your, premium energy machine. Also, your masters at UT-Knoxville is a triumph! I love it.

Sidenote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
[Thorium] needs no enrichment since it has only one natural isotope.
Technically and inconsequentially, there is a very small amount (~0.02%) of Th-230, the natural decay product of U-238 that was called "ionium" that is present in natural thorium found with uranium.
The 230Th[n,2n]229Th reaction has a threshold energy of 6.8 MeV and a cross section of 1.34 barns at 14 MeV.
Fast neutrons.
With respect to the comments on Metric 10 - Reliability: You argue that an MSR avoids down time because it doesn't need to stop operations to refuel. This is a good point, but it is not relevant to reliability. It is relevant to Availability, which is not the same thing.

The US Army has an acronym for the integrated requirements of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) . The uppermost requirement is a high degree of Availability. Reliable systems provide the simplest route to high availability. (However, you can have an unreliable system that provides good availability if you can fix it quickly. Not that I recommend this approach.)

The NNL report uses reliability, rather than availability, as a measure of merit. This is their mistake. Your argument is valid, but outside their limited definition. You must first convince them that Availability is a more relevant measure, then your argument makes sense.
Thank you, Steve, for this informative observation and distinction. The FE LFTR Maintainability is a concern to me. It's success will partly depend on its moderator that must be closely guarded IP. Moderator maintenance was an issue with the ORNL MSBR; FE LFTR >10-year moderator life before replacement?

_________________
"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


Last edited by Tim Meyer on Jul 05, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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