Posted on 09/11/2015 9:48:35 AM PDT by thackney
Economics.
Has the equipment that handles molten salt inside a closed loop been proven? Pumps, valves, heat exchangers, instrumentation?
With natural gas at $3 (MCF) and 50% efficient combined cycle, I don’t think nuclear anything is going anywhere.
The Fermi reactor near Detriot was not a Molten Salt Reactor. It was a Fast Breeder Reactor. Different concepts.
I hate to tell you, but I am working on fuel rods that are made from something other than zirconium so there is no production of hydrogen possible.
If successful, then it is a “cheap fix” and will put molten salt on the back burner.
Secondly, the problem at Fukushima was the lack of power to the circulating pumps. Today, every nuclear plant in the US is “hardening” their systems with backup generators/pumps in safe buildings away from the plant that can be hooked up quickly to restore power.
Fukushima exposed a flaw in the safety of nuclear power plants. But it is a flaw that is easily fixed without new reactors (that may bring their own new set of issues with them).
Isn’t the point that, if it DOES fail it will drain away into the holding tank. Not do something spectacularly explosive and polluting.
This was not a salt/fuel mix reactor though. But a solid rodded reactor with molten sodium cooling. Losing the coolant handling capability meant China, not a controlled meltdown/drainoff like is being described for this design.
(News flash: sodium isn’t salt. It’s a metal that easily reacts to form salts.)
I agree, as a strong advocate of nuclear energy, it just can’t compete....
pressurized water reactor vs. boiling water. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they consume.
It makes good ice cream!
there were two thorium based msr reactors that ran from 1966-1970 under oak ridge auspices.
“Fukushima exposed a flaw in the safety of nuclear power plants. But it is a flaw that is easily fixed without new reactors (that may bring their own new set of issues with them).”
Fukushima’s flaw was the diesel tanks that provided fuel for the generators were located outside the buildings walls. When the flood came it washed away the tanks. Basic design flaw. A protection wall around the tanks would have prevented the entire episode at that facility.
is it like sodium chloride?
one of the principle claims of msr reactors is that they will produce electricity at a fraction of the cost of lowest cost coal. because the resource is cheap and because they don’t require all they layers of protection that a light water reactor requires.
Fermi wasn’t the same type. It was cooled by salt (sodium), but it was a fast breeder. The fuel wasn’t mixed into the salt . This design is very different.
Oh, it ought to be tested well in a lab. But to simulate failures shouldn’t be hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.