EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's LFTR

Threads relating to the design of liquid-fluoride reactors.
jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by jagdish » Mar 23, 2016 5:18 am

Enrichment of Li7 is more critical than that of Cl37 as Li6 is a neutron poison and purity of 99.995% is required, tolerance being 1 in 20'000. Cl37 could be even 99% pure. LFTR, lf built, may have to have an initial burner version and use FNaBe salt.

User avatar
Tim Meyer
Posts: 361
Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by Tim Meyer » Apr 29, 2016 10:35 am

Burghard wrote:There was an interesting link on page xviii in the paper concerning isotopic separation of Li6/7.
Great paper!
"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

User avatar
Tim Meyer
Posts: 361
Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by Tim Meyer » Jun 07, 2016 8:10 pm

Kirk,

I searched through the Flibe Energy LFTR EPRI report for "core damage frequency" and "CDF" and found no hits.

Please excuse my statement of the obvious for the sake of contrast in a business case, but next to the Westinghouse AP1000s that are getting readied (Vogtle and VC Summer by 2019), from that link:
Large Safety Margins

The AP1000 PWR meets the U.S. NRC deterministic-safety and probabilistic-risk criteria with large margins. The safety analysis is documented in the AP1000 plant Design Control Document (DCD) and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). Results of the PRA show a very low core damage frequency (CDF) that is 1/100 of the CDF of currently operating plants and 1/20 of the CDF deemed acceptable in the Utility Requirements Document for new, advanced reactor designs. It follows that the AP1000 plant also improves upon the probability of large release goals for advanced reactor designs in the event of a severe accident scenario to retain the molten core within the reactor vessel.
This is apples and oranges for the FE LFTR, correct? So, LFTR beat's AP1000 with a 1/0 CDF--can't divide by zero.
Wikipedia wrote:On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant. The cost of building the two reactors is expected to be $14 billion.
Alec Herbert asked about FE LFTR cost ranges.
"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

E Ireland
Posts: 1565
Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by E Ireland » Jun 08, 2016 5:42 am

Core damage can still occur in a liquid fuel reactor, its just it won't look like it would in an LWR.

User avatar
Tim Meyer
Posts: 361
Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by Tim Meyer » Jun 08, 2016 12:12 pm

"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

User avatar
TerjeP
Posts: 78
Joined: Nov 18, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's

Post by TerjeP » Sep 08, 2016 12:27 pm

This report is primarily about LFTR commercialisation challenges which might explain the lack of audience enthusiasm. The business side of technology doesn't seem to evoke as much interest as the technical side. That said there are some nice "sneak peeks" at the Flibe Energy technical design.

For me the report is pretty much summed up by figures 3, 4 and 5. And the message is that LFTR is achievable, modestly complex, not ready yet and that there is lots of work yet to do on the road to commercialisation. I commend those that are doing it and I hope you have good financial backing.

In my book LFTR is the holy grail of reactor designs. However I'd really like to see this sort of analysis done on a comparative basis for some of the other MSR designs so as to be able to judge who might be first to market. I think being first to market will confer substantial advantages for whoever achieves it. And I do not take for granted that it will be LFTR.
image.jpeg
Figure 3
image.jpeg
Figure 4
image.jpeg
Figure 5

Post Reply