NNL Report

E Ireland
Posts: 1561
Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am

Re: NNL Reports on Advanced Reactors and Thorium Fuel Cycle

Post by E Ireland » Feb 09, 2014 8:08 pm

Well LWR containments can use steel plate fabrication techniques such that they are essentially "bolt together, fill with concrete and come back tommorow" types of construction.

I believe this has been used to significantly shorten the AP1000 production Schedule in China.

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

Re: NNL Reports on Advanced Reactors and Thorium Fuel Cycle

Post by Tim Meyer » Jul 03, 2016 9:29 am

Kirk Sorensen wrote:References:
ORNL-4577, "Low-Pressure Distillation of a Portion of the Fuel Carrier Salt from the MSRE", August 1971.
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ORNL-4577.pdf
Thank you, Kirk, for this valuable paper. Your work here is truly splendid indeed! Your company may be faced with what seems a nearly impossible mission, but I believe you will succeed. Your work will be honored by future generations and your name is destined to be remembered along with all great names.

May I add that some time soon, a great epiphany will happen on the Flibe Energy LFTR. High-level actions will pave the way for this, your, premium energy machine. Also, your masters at UT-Knoxville is a triumph! I love it.

Sidenote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:[Thorium] needs no enrichment since it has only one natural isotope.
Technically and inconsequentially, there is a very small amount (~0.02%) of Th-230, the natural decay product of U-238 that was called "ionium" that is present in natural thorium found with uranium.
Production of thorium-229 from thorium-230 US Pat. 20070098130 A1 wrote:The 230Th[n,2n]229Th reaction has a threshold energy of 6.8 MeV and a cross section of 1.34 barns at 14 MeV.
Fast neutrons.
[url=http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&p=47793#p47793]Re: NNL Reports on Advanced Reactors and Thorium Fuel Cycle[/url], SteveMoniz wrote:With respect to the comments on Metric 10 - Reliability: You argue that an MSR avoids down time because it doesn't need to stop operations to refuel. This is a good point, but it is not relevant to reliability. It is relevant to Availability, which is not the same thing.

The US Army has an acronym for the integrated requirements of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) . The uppermost requirement is a high degree of Availability. Reliable systems provide the simplest route to high availability. (However, you can have an unreliable system that provides good availability if you can fix it quickly. Not that I recommend this approach.)

The NNL report uses reliability, rather than availability, as a measure of merit. This is their mistake. Your argument is valid, but outside their limited definition. You must first convince them that Availability is a more relevant measure, then your argument makes sense.
Thank you, Steve, for this informative observation and distinction. The FE LFTR Maintainability is a concern to me. It's success will partly depend on its moderator that must be closely guarded IP. Moderator maintenance was an issue with the ORNL MSBR; FE LFTR >10-year moderator life before replacement?
Last edited by Tim Meyer on Jul 05, 2016 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"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