Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

I stumbled across this blog which has posted a 'critique' of new nuclear including a serious knock at LFTRs apparently on technical grounds. This will be read by opponents to nuclear so it's worth our technical experts taking a look. I don't think you will be able to set the blogger straight as his mind is made up but appraising and eesponding to his analysis might be worth while.

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/c ... -msr-lftr/

The blog links back to energy from thorium via ' cult following on line' link and also describes LFTR followers as a 'scientific cargo cult'. A bit of an insult but I trust this is a sign that the rising profile of thorium and LFTR is attracting a need to have a go. This blogger seems to have a technical background and he's blasting at the efficiency of LFTRs among other things particular around the reprocessing plant. These points may be picked by others so it's worth a measured rebuttal on his blog.

Not a bad article, altogether. The author screws up on temperature windows (didn't even bother to check ASME certification for Hastelloy N to operating temperatures) and makes a few other technical mistakes (graphite isn't coal at all and can only burn in the presence of strong oxidisers, more than air is required), but overall, pretty good view on the challenges and problems related to LFTR developments. Some of the form is a bit off, especially the politics part seems to be overly ad-hominem and completely unnecessary detraction of a fairly decent critique. But the author gets more right than wrong which is refreshing - most people don't get even the basics right.

I dunno which article you read Cyril but that was horrible. Internally inconsistent (the whole proliferation risk section ignored the U232 contamination issue, while another section about how hard LFTR would be talked about that nasty Th-208 gamma - thats just dishonest), ad hominem, straw men, etc. Technology marches on, it's been 40 years so it's been too long to try and pull this off the shelf, but ignore any materials science advances that might help...blah blah blah

And the best part was if any "technical experts" try post refutation we would automatically be part of the "nuclear cargo cult" (yep...we've got matching jackets...)

The author gets all temperature windows wrong, and there is no "Isotope separation plant" at a LFTR (chemical processing is something much different and trivial compared to the "ISP"). As the temperature windows of salt and the ISP are his points of main criticism, it seems to me rather conjured critique.

Concerning the ad-hominem attacks, one could easily turn them back - so here this amateur bloger who gets basic facts wrong is calling scientists and engineers with PhD in the relevant fields as "cargo cult followers"? I'd say it sums it out right.

Basically an anti-nuke, negativist article even if better informed than some others. There are many points which I have also noticed but found a solution in other types of nuclear reactors. Some such points and suggested solutions are:-
1. Graphite. Fast spectrum reactors will reduce total material in the reactor core. Fast reactors are more efficient in burning the actinides.
2. Movement of liquid fuel in piping and resultant problems. Liquid fuel should be used basically as fuel and not as heat transfer medium. This will also reduce the fuel inventory in the reactor. Low pressure clean salt or metal eutectic may be used for heat transfer to the heat exchangers. The liquid fuel can be held in CANDU-like but low pressure tubes and can be changed online. This will also ensure the removal of neutron absorbing volatile fission products and other benefits of fluid fuel. The tubes, the only component in contact with fuel, can be made easy to replace like the CANDU tubes.
3. Conversion of heat to electricity. Present technology of high temperature can be used and better out-of-core technologies can be introduced if and when available or desired.
A study in fast MSR
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... IR-332.pdf

The whole graphite section was dishonest. I think he knows quite well comparing it to a chunk of coal is not accurate, but he wants to ensure that the "graphite burns like crazy" idea gets out there. It's funny how people think we have not improved our materials science since the Windscale fire, far too useful of an assumption I guess.

Nuclear grade graphite will not burn, this has been proven over and over.

Okay, I read the article again, and looking a bit closer I agree its pretty terrible. The central critique rests on a technical misunderstanding of MSR basics and the ORNL work. Ironically the author reportedly sets out to set straight some misunderstandings, and then goes and make two dozen of his own!

The fellow not only insults Energy from Thorium supporter, but provides no means to answer his insults. No comments allowed, and no email address.

I think you have to go to the main page of the post to comment. It's in the 11 individual parts that he doesn't have a place to do so.

I did a google search this morning and came across this site:

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/

More specifically, this page:

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/c ... -msr-lftr/

is critical of LFTR and says this:

"The MSR and the LFTR (or lifter) reactor has something of a cult following on line. Unfortunately, this has led, through a process of what amounts to internet Chinese whispers to a lot of myths and miss-conceptions about the LFTR building up. Up to the point where its started to take on aspects of a Scientific Cargo Cult. As I go along with the technical analysis of this reactor concept, I’ll be taking the opportunity to debunk a couple of these, as they do a disservice to the design, and get in the way of the genuine science."

I then read through some of the comments and came across this detailed rebuttal:

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... y-for.html

An interesting read.

There may be a cost and time problem with 99.995% 7Li in FLiBe. However it would be wrong to throw away the MSR baby with its 7Li bath. You could always have a fast spectrum LFTR which would also be more compact using FNaBe. FNaBe could be used in short term even for thermal LFTR with better neutron economy than the LWR though not actually a breeder. 7Li problem could also be tackled in later versions.