This project need not be undertaken by the federal government. It is potentially affordable to a number of large businesses, and industries. The early reactors should be based on the tested technology pf the ORNL MSRE of the 1960s.
If you are interested please leave your name in the comment section, or email me, bartoncii@yahoo.com.
Posts
6 comments:
I don't think that making the reactor truck and rail transportable should be a firm requirement.
If you look at the Westinghouse SMR proposal, their 225 MWe LWR reactor is planned to be 11.5 foot in diameter to make it transportable. But it goes in a 32 ft. dia. steel containment (about the same size as a DMSR vessel). It's important that the LWR vessel be transportable because it is made of very thick steel, so it is forged. The containment, like a DMSR vessel, is thin enough to be easily welded together on-site (due to the lower pressure).
Of course I'm biased. The DMSR is my favorite reactor. The DMSR also has the advantage that, like the traveling wave reactor, it can provide a very large resource extension without using politically controversial reprocessing.
I believe the first real MSRs will all be SMRs. Ideally, they will be transportable on 3 tractor trailers, maybe 'wide load' types:
1. Reactor Core
2. Chemical reprocessing train
3. Turbine/Gen set.
The last one might have to be divided into two parts. A current 175MW generator can barely fit on one trailer right now. Same with a open cycle gas turbine, which actually comes in on the work site in about 3 sections itself: compressor stage, combustion stage and rotor.
I would urge people to point their browsers to coal2thorium.com where possible methods of transportation, including river-going barges can perhaps provide a better form of one full reactor upto 1GW in size based on existing shipbuilding and industrial barge techniques.
Tennessee...admittedly more western Tenn. is ideal for barge placement of MSRs, as most coal plants have large canal accessibility right-of-way.
David
Davis actually West Tennessee is potentually subject to very large earthquakes. The New Madrid earthquakes were hugem and there were at least 4 od them between 8.4 an 6.8. Memphis is in the earthquake zone. East tennessee, has not had a history of large earthquakes.
That is true. The last big one on the NMF was in the 1830s?
But reactors can be built to withstand such quakes. I think Japan proves this. And...the smaller the reactor, the stronger it can be built.
I wouldn't propose, however, LFTR siting in the smaller designated NMF zone which overlaps Tenn. and Missouri along the Big Muddy from the maps. Outside the zone of course.
Below Knoxville not far from Oak Ridge Tn. is Alcoa/Maryville. The Alcoa plant is idle. It has Road/Rail access with large electrical transmission lines entering the property. Great for manufacturing From looking at the Highway maps it looks like the power source for this Aluminum plant come from the Lake Fontana Dam in NC. The same Dam that powered the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion plant. Wouldn't it be neat if a few MSRs in Alcoa powered the Oak Ridge GDP.
Alcoa would be a good ,ocation, but the K-25 site would be even better.
Post a Comment