tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post7947666195697904227..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The Molten Salt Reactor Family: Uranium FuelCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-52414517896300528612011-07-06T21:50:08.119-05:002011-07-06T21:50:08.119-05:00Bogomilist. I believe historical reasons (that...Bogomilist. I believe historical reasons (that's the way it was developed) is the reason coal plants use a steam cycle. To develop a heat transfer system to run a helium cycle, or any other gas cycle, turbine for a coal burner or a molten salt reactor would be very expensive. As yet, no one has bothered to do it.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-71150630675056348142011-05-02T19:27:37.438-05:002011-05-02T19:27:37.438-05:00Off-topic, but why do people advocate a closed loo...Off-topic, but why do people advocate a closed loop Helium Brayton cycle as the heat engine for molten salt reactors like LFTR? If it were superior in terms of thermodynamic efficiency and power density, isn't that what coal plants would be using, rather than Rankine cycle?Bogomilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-22533264872024398732011-04-29T09:43:42.774-05:002011-04-29T09:43:42.774-05:00I see, now, as part of the Thorium Grand Plan the ...I see, now, as part of the Thorium Grand Plan the need to incorporate uranium Fast MSRs into the general scheme. This doesn't mean *settling* for a % of UMSRs but to build R&D reactors using the choloride version of the LFTR along side UMSRs to see which are in fact better at eating SNF and DU.<br /><br />I suspect we will see that SNF might well be better digested by the Chloride version of the LFTR than the UMSR but DU better consumed by the UMSR.<br /><br />We do what is best. There is simply zero need to actually use DU as a fuel since it doesn't really present any hazzard and can be stored anywhere. Not so LWR SNF, obviously.<br /><br />So part of any Grand Plan is integrating MSR technologies at existing LWR sites to consume the onsite SNF stocks that exist at every LWR.DWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03070034894266417461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-70062958494599736902011-04-28T23:47:59.703-05:002011-04-28T23:47:59.703-05:00There is such a Hugh amount of used LWR fuel lying...There is such a Hugh amount of used LWR fuel lying around in the US, France and Russia that UMSR is a crying need. You had years of planning negated by NIMBY sentiments at Yucca project. As U238 is somewhat fissionable in the fast spectrum,fast MSR is preferable.<br />Fast reactor can have a harder spectrum if you have your salts as lower melting Chlorides. Of course, you will need isotope Cl37(25% 0f natural chlorine) separated and used in the core.<br />100 or 200MW fast UMC(Chloride) Reactor can be standardized for a world market and manufactured at many locations.jagdishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126711161372003634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-2889177428077983722011-04-27T21:26:04.126-05:002011-04-27T21:26:04.126-05:00So the molten salt reactor family is quite large. ...So the molten salt reactor family is quite large. Is there a way to picture the design options?<br />Fuel Choices:<br /> Thorium<br /> Uranium<br /> Spent LWR fuel<br /> Pebbles<br />On site Reprocessing:<br /> None<br /> Two fluid (extract from one insert into the other)<br /> One fluid (inline removal of fission products)<br />Fluid Choices:<br /> Fluoride-beryllium<br /> Fluoride-lithium<br /> Chloride<br />Moderator:<br /> Graphite<br /> Molten salt only<br /><br />Is there a way to show which design choice options work well together?Martin Burklehttp://martin.burkle@att.netnoreply@blogger.com