Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 21, 2018 11:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 19, 2012 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 19, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville, TN
Kirk, this is a splendid job you did in commenting on the paper. Is there a way to send this a technical review of their paper to somebody who cares, perhaps via the Weinberg foundation? I would expect the NNL to be more responsive than our friends at PSR/IEER..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 19, 2012 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3386
Location: Alabama
ondrejch wrote:
Kirk, this is a splendid job you did in commenting on the paper. Is there a way to send this a technical review of their paper to somebody who cares, perhaps via the Weinberg foundation? I would expect the NNL to be more responsive than our friends at PSR/IEER..


All of my information was supplied to the DECC (and then on to the NNL) last fall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 20, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 16, 2012 7:15 am
Posts: 93
With respect to your comments on Metric 9: Sabotage resistance assessment

I would add that the resistance to sabotage is significantly worse for solid-fueled reactors because their spent fuel pools are vulnerable. Most security experts will tell you that the spent fuel pools are a far easier target for a saboteur than the reactor. A saboteur can cause an incident simply by draining the water. Decay heat will cause a partial meltdown, releasing the volatiles. Much of the waste from a liquid-fueled reactor stays inside the reactor. This waste is "out in the open" only at the end the reactor's operating lifetime. And should they be breached, most of the volatiles have already been removed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 21, 2012 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
Perhaps you could get the Weinberg Foundation to sue the NNL for waste, fraud & abuse; or misuse of appropriated funds based on their lousy handling of LFTRs. :mrgreen:

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2012 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
SteveMoniz wrote:
With respect to your comments on Metric 9: Sabotage resistance assessment

I would add that the resistance to sabotage is significantly worse for solid-fueled reactors because their spent fuel pools are vulnerable. Most security experts will tell you that the spent fuel pools are a far easier target for a saboteur than the reactor. A saboteur can cause an incident simply by draining the water. Decay heat will cause a partial meltdown, releasing the volatiles. Much of the waste from a liquid-fueled reactor stays inside the reactor. This waste is "out in the open" only at the end the reactor's operating lifetime. And should they be breached, most of the volatiles have already been removed.


And how are you going to drain the water from a below grade pool of water, with steel lined thick reinforced concrete walls in engineered soil?

Do you think you can casually stroll into the spent fuel pool building with a large explosive pack on your back, take all the time you need to install and wire it, and set it off?

And how will you postulate a partial meltdown, when the operators have many many hours to add water back to the spent fuel pool? Are the operators going to sit down and read the newspapers?

Neither solid fuelled nor liquid fuelled reactors are vulnerable to sabotage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2012 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
Could the containment for noble gases sparged out of a LFTR be a plausible sabotage target?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 25, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
jon wrote:
Could the containment for noble gases sparged out of a LFTR be a plausible sabotage target?


We need to split this question into very short term stuff and longer term stuff. The longer term stuff is like the spent fuel storage in an LWR. After a few months the only radiation in the off-gas is from 85Kr. This stuff really is no threat and in current practice is often simply released into the atmosphere.

The short term stuff is of more concern. So you have to postulate if a power plant is under attack will the operators shut it down? How long will the power plant be able to hold out against the attackers? If htey can't hold out long enough for the calvary to arrive how long will the attackers have control of the plant?

But yes, the fresh off-gases really should not be released into the environment. Doing so will definitely cause harm. The more quickly you can manage to break through the defenses, destroy the containment, add explosives to force the off-gases into the world the more damage you can do. Note that the off-gases have a pretty strong self-protection feature. They are hot and very radioactive so you have to do all this with virtually no electronics, no humans, all remote, and of coarse very fast. If I were a terrorist I'd go after chlorine and ammonia tankers on the highway instead. Very much easier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 25, 2012 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
jon wrote:
Could the containment for noble gases sparged out of a LFTR be a plausible sabotage target?


It also depends on the design. If the offgas system is positioned in a no-access hot cell, at the bottom of a deep nonradioactive buffer salt pool, which is itself located below grade, it's very difficult to imagine sabotage leading to a radioactive release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 09, 2014 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
What is the cost of secondary containment plus all safety systems associated for an LWR ?

Anyone could quote actual cost from a project that was done without political disruption.

LFTRs are more complex, and the only way they can beat LWRs are with factory built (in scale) reactors.

Plus a reactor site with a dozen 250MWe LFTRs could share the blanket to core processing and fission product removal facilities, couldn't it ?

I'm think LFTRs *can* be cheaper if they are mass produced, one a week bare minimum.

You can't pre fabricate the LWR secondary containment.

LFTRs can be designed they can re-purpose an existing coal boiler space, while that's impossible with LWRs.

I'm not trying to say I know this already for sure, but rather to spark the discussion to quantify the LWR side costs.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 09, 2014 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1494
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: 356
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  [ 26 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