Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 25, 2018 3:09 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 15, 2015 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
camiel wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
It surprises me too because that "design" is very poorly designed (in fact, impossible).

I've put together a little spreadsheet that uses the data in that Co.'s slide show to show that it couldn't possibly work as described due to heat transfer considerations (the fuel salt would have to be above its boiling point to get enough heat transfer through the walls of the fuel salt tubes). This is ironic because thermal induced convective heat transfer is supposed to be that concept's "novel" feature (probably patented by now).

Does anyone see a hole in my reasoning ?



FYI, the Ian Scott/Moltex UK patent talks of several possible SSR reactor configurations:

http://moltexenergy.com/news/details.aspx?positionId=15

http://moltexenergy.com/files/cms/3_Ann ... cument.pdf


Thanks much for the info. It looks like Fig 3 of the MOLTEX patent proves my point - the max temperature of the 80%U20%TRU trichloride fuel salt with a 45 mm tube & 180 KW/liter (1.5 GWt/8.2 m3)would be about 2100C which is far above its boiling point (BP pure UCl3=1657C, BP Pure PuCL3=1767C).

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 15, 2015 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jan 12, 2010 10:15 am
Posts: 40
Location: Singapore
camiel wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
It surprises me too because that "design" is very poorly designed (in fact, impossible).

I've put together a little spreadsheet that uses the data in that Co.'s slide show to show that it couldn't possibly work as described due to heat transfer considerations (the fuel salt would have to be above its boiling point to get enough heat transfer through the walls of the fuel salt tubes). This is ironic because thermal induced convective heat transfer is supposed to be that concept's "novel" feature (probably patented by now).

Does anyone see a hole in my reasoning ?



FYI, the Ian Scott/Moltex UK patent talks of several possible SSR reactor configurations:

http://moltexenergy.com/news/details.aspx?positionId=15

http://moltexenergy.com/files/cms/3_Ann ... cument.pdf


I think the take-away that you might wish to consider from darryl's post is: why was the moltex design chosen as the best potential candidate in light of the fact that you need to do this kind of mental acrobatics on their behalf? (as in be forced to give them the benefit of the doubt by considering every possible configuration they say 'can' be done, rather than taking their base design at face value).

It gives one pause and raises the niggling suspicion that the study was 1) biased due to potential CoI issues, 2) biased with a 'made in england, screw practicability' mentality, 3) done by people who don't really know what the heck they are talking about.

Regardless of whether it could be one, or all of the above, it doesn't particularly engender much confidence in the study or the company that did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 20, 2015 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2229
If you consider a really rational reactor design for UK, Prism, an offer under consideration is perhaps the best bet in the near term. It will get value from the recovered plutonium stocks and the company might built the first on a build, operate and transfer basis to publicise the modular fast reactor design.
Cost of power from the Indian PFBR nearing the start is estimated at one-third of the EPR costs. British Prism could also be competitive with the EPR.
Anything that could be more synergetic with the closed fuel cycle is a fast MSR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 21, 2015 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
jagdish wrote:
If you consider a really rational reactor design for UK, Prism, an offer under consideration is perhaps the best bet in the near term. It will get value from the recovered plutonium stocks and the company might built the first on a build, operate and transfer basis to publicise the modular fast reactor design.
Cost of power from the Indian PFBR nearing the start is estimated at one-third of the EPR costs. British Prism could also be competitive with the EPR.
Anything that could be more synergetic with the closed fuel cycle is a fast MSR.

PRISM is gone. If S-PRISM were even close to as cheap as GE claims, they would have built the first one out of their pockets in a nuclear friendly country and got dozens of orders after proving their claims.
The fact is everybody maximizes their positives and closely hides their issues.
I hope DMSRs will be as cheap and as safe as claimed. I'll give them some cheering until 2025. After that if they don't deliver then it's just another failed nuclear project.
Although I hate Putin, at least the Ruskies are doing fast plutonium breeders today. BN-800 is claimed to be in criticality. BN-1200 is delayed but they have BN-800 to show they mean business.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 22, 2015 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 187
macpacheco wrote:
Although I hate Putin, at least the Ruskies are doing fast plutonium breeders today. BN-800 is claimed to be in criticality. BN-1200 is delayed but they have BN-800 to show they mean business.


You only hate Putin because you've been told to do so (Lockheed Martin needs some more orders). You are right, without Russia there wouldn't be all that much interesting happening in nuclear power. Fast reactors ... lead, lead-bismuth, sodium, SMR's, floating reactors, they're doing it all (unfortunately not molten salt ... have to rely on China).

They decided to shut down the BN800 and work on the fuel design some more, are ready to start it up again any day. The delay on the BN1200 is too bad, as that is supposed to become the 'fleet' model. It would help if China would reinstate their order for 2 BN800's ... I've read they are watching the prototype closely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 23, 2015 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 01, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 51
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/bill-gates ... errapower/

The two companies plan to work together to complete the traveling wave reactor design and commercialize the technology. The collaboration will help accelerate technology development overall.

“We recognized from the beginning that we needed a key partnership to take this design and make it a reality,” Gates said today. “We are very excited that CNNC has been talking with us and working with us about a very important partnership. The MOU we signed today was a milestone with our relationship with them.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 29, 2015 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2229
The travelling wave reactor is really another fast reactor which could turn out to be a good design. A quantum jump would be a molten salt fast reactor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 03, 2015 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
jagdish wrote:
The travelling wave reactor is really another fast reactor which could turn out to be a good design. A quantum jump would be a molten salt fast reactor.


A quantum jump would be a molten salt reactor. Full stop.

I can't see the Terrapower Na cooled reactor being able to compete with simple MSRs. However, for fast spectrum designs - as 240Pu burners - it might be advantageous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 03, 2015 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
alexterrell wrote:
jagdish wrote:
The travelling wave reactor is really another fast reactor which could turn out to be a good design. A quantum jump would be a molten salt fast reactor.


A quantum jump would be a molten salt reactor. Full stop.

I can't see the Terrapower Na cooled reactor being able to compete with simple MSRs. However, for fast spectrum designs - as 240Pu burners - it might be advantageous.


A "fast" molten chloride salt based MSR would be able to "burn" 240Pu etc. more completely than could Terrapower's "magic cladding" dependent LMFBR & wouldn't require the manufacture, shuffeling around & eventual "management" of a gawdawful mess of fuel rods to accomplish it.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 03, 2015 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2229
A fast MSR would be able to burn Pu240 along with other trans-uranics.
It will also burn recovered uranium.
Depleted uranium stocks could also be burnt.
It will be very energy intensive and the core size will have to be fixed by considerations of heat transfer. Carrier salt will have to be added.
Thorium will be best used as blanket in initial units and converted U-233 used as a superior fissile in following versions.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 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