I see the technical advantage of the CO2 Brayton, I'm just worried about the separate development work & associated risk. As long as someone else is funding it and a demonstration is built, no worries. The NACC is compelling primarily because of the minimal development work required (everyone loves off the shelf sourcing); at the same time I think the natural gas co-firing is underrated. ugh bad policy, a lot of markets have (or will have) grids with extreme load transients...and I expect tripling power output in an MSFR or other reactor in the course of an hour will do bad things to system life; if that's the case, the natural gas is going to be used for peaking power anyway, you may as well increase it's combustion efficiency.darryl siemer wrote:
Good catch on p 3's 239Pu. thanks
Due to CO2's superior "compressibility", CO2 Brayton is apt to be both more efficient & cheaper to build (smaller) than an open-air system which, in turn, should translate to lower cost electricity. It also provides another barrier to tritium loss. I'm not too excited about generating another customer for "fracked" natural gas.
As far as recycling the 7Li is concerned I just feel that it wouldn't be worth doing as far as the utility's owners are concerned. In any case, recovering it would probably be easier/cheaper after the glass logs containing it along with that scenario's discarded thorium have cooled off in the repository (it ain't gonna go anywhere).
Alternatively I suppose you could overbuild reactor capacity and use cogeneration or desalination when loads are lower. That's a more appealing setup, but you lose some siting flexibility.