Elysium Industries

Threads relating to the design of liquid-chloride, fast-spectrum reactors as well as fuel reprocessing.
Posts: 143
Joined: Dec 01, 2006 7:23 pm

Elysium Industries

Post by pstudier » Nov 23, 2017 1:44 pm

Does anyone have an opinion of this company and their technology?


Paul Studier

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4064
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Elysium Industries

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Nov 23, 2017 11:44 pm

Bunch of kids conned an investor out of his cash, blew the wad in 18 months, hired and fired a bunch of people, and a handful of them drove the kids out and are attempting to continue the company despite its crushing debts load. Likely the company will be dead in a few more months.

User avatar
Tim Meyer
Posts: 359
Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Elysium Industries

Post by Tim Meyer » Sep 18, 2018 9:35 am

Wow, Kirk! Ed Pheil's talk at the 8th TEA conference was impressive? TerraPower's MCFR mention is where I started on your forum, as you may recall. Right after the EPRI evaluation of your LFTR.

Fast neutron spectrum to avoid the nuclear graphite waste seems a big deal. I am posting because I care about energy tech policy. I am effectively an informed layperson (former GCMS chemist). You and the others here are the experts. The million-to-one power advantage with fission versus burning fossil carbon is glaringly invisible? These and other fission problems can and should be worked out. But on land, terrestrial fission tech needs to be consistent with the matrix. Oceans deep where the nuclear submarines prowl can use the solid water-cooled design; built-in "drain tank". On land? Molten salt, hands down.

Old news. You pointed out immediately upon my late arrival to this forum (a forum for a robust thorium economy), when the EPRI report just arrived (I bought a copy), TerraPower's MCFR was being looked at and Southern was going with them.

Now TerraPower is building in China? Meanwhile, what a can a layperson understand about a broiling molten chloride salt volume of intense neutron flux blowing through a complex soup of nuclei undergoing fission and transmutation? Seems to my limit view that such a machine would have to burn non-stop for a hundred years straight through and power a chunk of a continent at start-up commit if such a machine is the best way to go; I believe it should be built immediately just because of it's SNF burning capability. There's room at Savannah River Site that's already nuclear approved for a bank of chloride fast reactors enough to power the eastern seaboard? This is assuming bi-partisan support and a consortium of all the effected industries. But million-to-one power? Really? One has to "think" about it?

If the cesium and iodine that burn in improve the molten salt characteristics, that's a big natural gift! That reactor volume could run for a hundred years before servicing? Ultimately, such an aged volume of reactor salt would be a huge waste problem. But it's already stabilized as salt and not oxide; another natural bonus. And it is designed to do 100% fissile burn-up so that 100-yr waste volume is free of transuranics and rather <=300-yr FPs?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
"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

Post Reply