DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors

User avatar
Jim L.
Posts: 138
Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors

Post by Jim L. » Jun 15, 2016 8:00 am

A containment structure is likely to be required by the NRC and the public whether or not it is strictly needed. I would not put much effort in resisting it, a LFTR would have a very small containment structure compared to a LWR and thinner walls too, so the time and money impact will be relatively low. The structure would also be useful against airplanes and/or a truck filled with 'fertilizer'...

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

Re: DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Jun 15, 2016 8:23 am

off topic

Posts: 2290
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors

Post by jagdish » Jun 15, 2016 11:11 pm

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Jim L. wrote:From reading a dozen of these presentations, it seems like most of these folks can only grasp the concept of "salt cooled" OR "solid Th" -- the concept of "molten salt fuel" AND "ThF" hasn't breached the cranial confinement structure.
Oh I can confirm that assessment!

Thorium == thorium dioxide in an LWR
Liquid fuels == evil and bad and strange
Another way of looking at it is that MSR of any sort including the lifter is too hot for anyone to swallow at present! A Th-20%LEU solid fuel may be the limit of digestibility right now. With thorium blanket, it could be a U-233 producer. U-233 could be proved as the superior fissile for reactors while the nuclear power continues to be produced. I think the Chinese may actually do it. I wish India or someone else did it.

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

Re: DOE/NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors

Post by Tim Meyer » Jun 17, 2016 11:02 am

Kirk Sorensen wrote:off topic
Kirk, I suggest the topic started by Chuk May 31, 2014: LFTR benchmark under Board index » Liquid-Halide Reactors » Fluoride Reactor Design that begins with:
Chuk wrote:Hi there!

Is there any model of the LFTR to be benchmarked? You see there [are many] publications [related to] MSFR, but even the GIF itself has greatly undermined the project altogether with the assigned deadlines (last road map). The MSFR in turn was the so-called natural evolution from the AMSTER, so that one is kind of gone, too. Regardless of the level of progress, information and publications regarding the remaining options--MOSART, China's MSR, and FUJI--are difficult to come by or nonexistent. What is well documented, of course, is the MSRE, which was used as "the" benchmarking tool. And also the not-so-happy MSBR. So, what about the LFTR?

Is there anything available or is it just sealed because of engineering secrecy and so?
May 31, 2014, Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Boris H wrote:Stricto sensu, MSBR and MSFR are LFTRs. LFTR is a generic term (by the way rarely used outside the US), not a specific design.
Flibe Energy is working towards a series of LFTR designs. Some aspects are proprietary while others will be released more and more, and in some cases have been released.
Since then we have: EPRI publishes tech innovation report on Flibe Energy's LFTR October 2015.

From "NASA" - THORIUM REMIX 2016, Kirk, you explained your thinking when you selected something other than "molten salt reactor" for thorium and came up with what I believe is an original trade name for the Flibe Energy power generation machine to sell to utility companies. If LFTR is not known elsewhere it's understandable. You said the em (molten) sound has a negative aspect. So your acronym came out "lifter" that is particularly positive in terms of the future energy technology outlook.

Dr. Kemal Pasamehmetoglu, INL Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science and Technology, Director of Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) had this slide:
Kemal P 2016 NRC-DOE Workshop.jpg

• Chemical-thermodynamic databases
• Fission-product management strategies
• Fission-gas management strategies (e.g. tritium)
• Reactivity (fissile/fertile inventory) management
• Corrosion management
• Multi-physics modeling for liquid fueled systems

The "LFTR Benchmark" topic is a good place to carry on the aspects--like LFTR containment--that Flibe Energy is able to discuss openly and not compromise company IP.
Alec Herbert wrote:Ashley Finan (NIA) - Need a staged and tech inclusive licensing process. A test bed for reactors would be good. has a license report outline. S. 2795 and H.R. 4979 are good to look at.
H.R. 4979 continues to gain sponsors. (Excuse the pun; a little justified cynicism for the relative quality of the workshop?)
H.R. 4979 SEC. 4. Agency coordination. wrote:The NRC and the Department shall enter into the [sic] a memorandum of understanding regarding the following topics:

(1) TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.—Ensuring that the Department has sufficient technical expertise to support the civilian nuclear industry’s timely development and commercial deployment of safe, innovative advanced reactor technology and the NRC has sufficient technical expertise to support the evaluation of applications for licenses, permits, and design certifications, and other requests for regulatory approval for advanced reactors.

(2) MODELING AND SIMULATION.—The use of computers and software codes to calculate the behavior and performance of advanced reactors based on mathematical models of their physical behavior.

(3) FACILITIES.—Ensuring that the Department maintains and develops the facilities to support the civilian nuclear industry’s timely development and commercial deployment of safe, innovative reactor technology and ensuring that the NRC has access to such facilities, as needed.
Between GAIN and H.R. 4979, are amendments to 42 U.S.C. & 10 CFR needed?

Dr. Weinberg's MSBR team at ORNL would have marveled to see into the future of computer modeling and simulation that we have today. At the time, our national priorities included the ORNL MSBR and therefore was funded out of general revenues. Certainly Flibe Energy qualifies for further general revenues to complete readiness level tests through GAIN?

In any case, assuming at some point achievement of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7 (of 9) for all LFTR systems, it appears some legislation like H.R. 4979 and possibly amendments and additions to 42 U.S.C. and 10 CFR will be required before NRC can finally approve permits for TRL 8 and 9 and licenses for commercial deployment of an FE LFTR.
"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